many seniors that we have across the country and for us to take this program and create it into a voucher that won't keep up with health care costs, we're ultimately giving a lose-lose choice. they can either pay more or settle for reduced health care services. i just don't think that's fair to do to our seniors. i'd like to yield my time back. . >> there is a common theme. this budget proposal attacked those most vulnerable in our society and as a current theme, reduces services and programs and protection for seniors. medicare is part of a social contract we have already made with our seniors and should not be broken. turning medicare into a voucher program and increase costs to seniors, will increase costs to others, and it gambles with their well-being.

seniors will be left to negotiate their premiums with insurance companies and prescription drug programs. they will be unable to afford those premiums. they will get sick and sicker and be forced to go into the hospital. hospital costs will go up. hospital costs cannot be recovered. folks like my 74-year-old mother who returned home from the hospital today will be unable to negotiate the necessary therapeutic care to reduce her overall cost in health care system and have any quality of life. i urge your support for this amendment and thank my colleague for bringing it forward. and yield my time back. >> mr. chairman, the issue here is very simply, some of you have not yet lived long enough to have your parents get really old. all of us who have had a parent reece derrek a's or 90's, know that what they want is a

guarantee uncertainty -- have had a parent reach their 80's or 90's. jimmy, please come over here and help me figure out which drug plan i should get into. she had 26 different drug plans laying there on the table and could not figure out, at 86, which one was the best for her. now what you are saying to seniors, you are thinking in terms of 65-year-old son who just quit boat -- woodworking and boeing as an engineer and is retiring. you've got to think about the old people who get to the place where their mental functions are not the same, and you are saying to them, here is your browser, sweetheart. why don't you go out and find an insurance company that will take you? no insurance company wants an 86-year-old woman. my father died at 93. that is why we have to adopt this amendment.

>> i yield myself 10 minutes, because i really want to get into this one. [laughter] welcome back to the committee, mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott and i are very familiar with one another. we serve on the ways and means committee together. this is my 11th budget committee markup. i have seen it all. one of the things i have learned this, when your adversary has to so grossly distort your proposal to try to make an argument, you know you are winning. when they shadowbox a proposal that did not exist to try to make their political point, you know your winning your argument. for those who were not tuning in to this so keenly, you will hear them say voucher or premium support, whatever, the same thing. not true. here is what a voucher is. you go to your mailbox, you get a check, you put money on it,

like a school choice of doctor, and then go buy something. that is not what premium support is. what is premium support? we all have premium support because we are federal employees. medicare part b, the drug benefit, is premium support. you have a list of guaranteed coverage options from medicare. guaranteed. cannot be denied. no matter who you are, you get it. nobody can turn you down. you choose from a list of guaranteed coverage options that have to be equivalent with traditional medicare. and then you pick the plan that you want, and then medicare mailed the check to your plan to subsidize your premium. if you are poor, you get 100% coverage. all of your out of pocket costs. as you get sicker, like a person's elderly parent, the 65- year-old boeing engineer is pretty healthy.

the 88-year-old is not so healthy. if you are a wealthy person, we do not subsidize you as much. because you are welcome. you can afford more out of pocket cost for your premium. if you are a middle income sr., premium support is equivalent to what you have today. it says there will be at least two guaranteed coverage options that you can afford with the premium support you are getting. now, is this some crazy, right wing idea? actually, we got the idea from democrats. it is an idea that came out of a democratic thing called the brookings institute. it is the only bipartisan idea that has yet to be offered to actually save and strengthen medicare. now, here's the problem. medicare is going broke.

we can say how much we love this program as much as we want, but if you don't have an answer from preventing this program from going bankrupt, then you are complicity with its demise. in 2023, the trust fund is bankrupt. tens of truman's of dollars of unfunded liability on this program, promises our government is making to seniors which our government has no need -- no means to pay. we want to put the senior citizen in charge. we want her to be able to pick benefits that meet our needs, and she wants to stay in the traditional medicare program, she can do that. more for the poor and sick, less for the wealthy. as far as ending medicare as we know it, every democrat on this committee who is in a second term or hire who voted for obamacare ended medicare as we know it. every freshman who says they are in favor of obamacare it is for ending medicare as we know it. because obamacare ended medicare

as we know it. now we had this exchange to the wall through about the cap, about the gdp plus by. i should have clarified a little further. under obamacare, there's a hard cap on the program. it applies to current seniors, to the current program. the independent panel advisory board of unelected bureaucrats, they decide how and where to cut medicare, how to price control medicare to conform to the cap. that affects current seniors, therefore ending medicare as we now know it. our proposal does not put that cap on current seniors. let's medicare grow at its current rate so the guarantee of medicare is actually there for those at or near retirement. for those people born before 1958, there is no ipad cap.

there is no cap on those seniors. what we are saying is for those of us who are younger, it is not going to be there for us if we go down the path we are on. when we become medicare eligible, that is when that cap kicks in. the only reason there is a cap is because the cbo tells us they don't have the tools to measure competitive bidding. i think we have one great piece of evidence. competitive bidding in a premium support system has been tried. medicare part b, medicare program. guess what happened? we debated this issue back in 2003. this all came in 40% below their original cost projection. name me another big government program that was created that came in 41% a low-cost production. this one. why? choice and competition. if your provider of your drug benefit does not do a good job

for you, does not deliver the service and benefits and the prices you like, you can fire that provider and hire another one. and know this, so they compete against each other for our business. joyce and competition. it is not 15 your cats reject not 15 bureaucrats rationing. they did not believe in choice and competition. they said let's lock these premiums where they are. it brought the premiums down by a third. we know this works because we have tried it already. it is the only idea that democrats and republicans will be able to work together to save this program. is the guarantee program. not just for current seniors but for future seniors who right now under the status quo will not have medicare. this is the deal.

we've got to get beyond the name calling. we've got to get beyond the demagoguery of this issue to solve this problem. we all know that medicare is the primary driver of our debt in the future. we all know that this program is one of the most important programs that the government has. it offers health security to our nation's senior citizens. name me a person that does not agree with that mission. there is not one year. the question is not whether or not we should have a guarantee of health security for our senior citizens in america. we all agree with that. the question is, how we achieve that? had a we achieve it given that this incredibly important program -- it helps my family. a program that we need to keep. the question is, how do we save it? had restrengthen at? what lessons can we learn from the 20th century that were to apply to the 21st century?

that is what we are doing here. when we want to use this as a cudgel against each other in the next election, all we end up doing is kicking the can down the road and getting nothing done. here is the problem. every year we delay, every year we demagogue, every year we do nothing to say this program, the hole gets that much deeper. seniors are put that much more in jeopardy. that is why this amendment needs to be defeated. it does not do justice to the truth, it does not do justice to our senior citizens, who deserve an intact program. it does not do justice to the younger people who are working in america day -- today, hoping this will be there for them when we know it will not be. that is why this amendment needs to be rejected, and hopefully one day, we can actually come together, like i have with some other democrats, to fix this thing before it unravels before.

i will yield back the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, mr. mcdermott. obamacare, we know, extended the life of the medicare part a trust fund. you must know that to come despite all the rhetoric last fall. there's a fundamental difference between premium support and vouchers. premium support is what members of congress have. premium support is what federal employees have. it is a fair share formula. as health care goes up, costs go up, you are guaranteed a fixed percentage of support. a whole way this works in terms of reducing the deficit is to detach the value of your voucher from the escalating cost. if we have extra time, i would like a couple more seconds.

the reality is the same with prescription drug plans. it is a fixed percentage. you detach it entirely, that is why cbo scored the plan the way it did. >> we have to be fair to everyone else. >> we have more amendments coming. >> i am happy to do that. >> believe me, i would like to continue this debate. i enjoy this debate. i would. the question is on agreeing with the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. all those in favor say aye. the noes have it. the clerk will call the roll.

>> mr. bryce no. mr. barakat no. mr. campbell no. mr. talbert no. mr. colbert no. mr. clinton no. ms. black no. mr. flores no. oodall no. ms. blackburn no. ms. hartzler no. mr. messer no.

mr. rice no. mr. williams no. mr. duffy no. .r. van hollanen aye mr. ryan aye. ms. castor aye. mr. mcdermott aye. ms. lee aye. mr. jefferies aye. mr. hoffman aye.

mr. blumenauer aye. mr. schrader aye. mr. chairman no. mr. chairman, on that boat, the ayes are 17, noes 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. are there other amendments? >> amendment no. 9. >> mr. chairman, an amendment offered by ms. lee related to overseas contingency operation fun. >> the gentle lady is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this amendment will in the uncontrolled spending to fund our overseas operations, which really has little or oversight or accountability. just last week, i met with

special investigator -- excuse me, and special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction and reviewed his detailed report on waste, fraud, and abuse going on in afghanistan. i know of you know of the report of taxpayer dollars this appearing in cash coming in suitcases. no one really knows how many millions of dollars really have been stolen from the american taxpayer. my amendment cuts $338 billion over 10 years from the overseas contingency operations account and reallocate those funds to other accounts that helps homeless veterans and prevent cuts to other domestic priorities. we have been funding the wars in iraq and afghanistan for 12 long years, using all budget supplementals and contingency appropriations. this of budget accounting has been used to simply shift so- called savings in the base

budget over to the lbgo with really no real reduction. we have not faced the true cost of a $1.40 trillion in at war spending. it is time to say enough is enough. the bloated pentagon budget needs to be modernized. we need to end outdated cold war and our weapons programs and we need to audit the pentagon. without financial oversight of the largest federal agency, we like the most basic knowledge about how our dollars are being spent or misspent, and for what purpose. my amendment matches the funding levels with the administration clearly stated goals in afghanistan. while many of us want to see our troops come home sooner than the timetable that the administration has set forth, now is the time to end this accounting loophole that has allowed the pentagon to hide the true cost of having -- i urge a

yes vote on this amendment and i will yield two minutes to the ranking member, mr. van hollen. >> we are still debating medicare over here. >> i want to emphasize a couple of points here. with respect to fiscal year 2014 level that is in a republican budget with the overseas contingency operations is above the level necessary. what is being done here, really, is trying to hide the excess spending in the defense department's bike slicing up your overseas contingency account. on the one hand, you are saying we found savings in the defense department. they are not subject to the sequester, like everything else that is subject to double the sequester. it is not really at budget control act levels.

>> will yield, just for a second? >> is in the sequester. the reason we don't have the president's budget, so we don't know what his budget request for the war is. is the thing we do know. the president has said that between now and the end of this year, there'll be 30 up thousand fewer troops in afghanistan. what we do know is that the congressional budget office projection for this is much lower than what you put in your budget. so the reality is, what you are doing is plussing up defense spending by adding more money to the overseas contingency account. what ms. lee is saying is, don't play that game. don't try and pretend you are containing costs in the defense department while you are off loading them by putting extra funds in the overseas contingency account. let's take those guns and use them for veterans and other

purposes she has. this is the game i think we are going to see in the days ahead, as there is more pressure on the defense department budget, even though it is not the sequester, people will try to push more money into the so- called overseas contingency operation, even as our troops are scheduled to be out of afghanistan by the end of 2014, and we see a significant drawdown this year. this is savings very well spent, and i want to thank ms. lee for offering the amendment. >> i yield 1.5 minutes to mr. blumenauer of oregon. >> you say you are bringing us into focus here. other things you mentioned there, we just kind of shrug off things that in any other area would command our respect. an f-35 seven years behind schedule and over budget. two-thirds of a trillion dollars

over the next 10 years our nuclear arsenal that is multiple times more than would ever be needed to deter any country, and having not one, not to, but three redundant delivery systems, and we are now starting the next round of submarine acquisitions, allegedly at $5 billion of peace. we have never come to grips with the costs and consequences of an all volunteer army. either to scale it or to raise money to spend -- to pay for it. i appreciate your advancing this. i hope this may be an area for some serious discussion in this congress, because if we don't get our arms around pentagon spending, something that cannot even be audited, with example after example that would not be tolerated in any other area of governor, and we kind of shrug

and rutan. i think it is time for that to stop. -- we just kind of shrug and move on. >> i appreciate your bringing this amendment forward. we had staff talk to us earlier that one of the worst aspects of this budget is that it balances the defense needs on the backs of our children and those that are most vulnerable. what we do here, very clearly, and was stated republican staff, they double down on the domestic discretionary cuts to keep their defense budget up at the budget control act levels. i have no problem trying to help our warriors, but what about helping them when they come home? the tail on this war is going to be huge, folks. i don't think it is fair to balance the current dod budget that is grossly bloated -- the

biggest band in this country is in the army. schools built overseas for elementary kids, $70 million. how much debt it -- does it cost schools?guys' i would urge that we switch some of the money like the amendment suggests into helping our veterans that are coming home. they need our help for the next 20 or 30 years. >> let me just close by noting that it was the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, who said that the oco account allows the pentagon to make what it calls the tough trade. we simply cannot continue to increase funding for the pentagon without demanding the pentagon pass a clean audit immediately. also we bus stop this method of

funding are wars with limitless blank checks and we should repeal the authorization of the use of military force that in many instances now has been justified as a legal justification for the use of drones, and this authorization has always also funded the oco. so i urge a yes vote on this a minute and i think the committee needs to move forward because this is a very urgent, critical issue, and the american public needs to really recognize that billions of dollars have also been stolen in cash in suitcases, that we never will know how much or were that money has gone. >> i believe we all support our veterans and want to do the best we can to help them make sure when they come home and not all

have jobs but they have the services they need. the funds that this amendment is proposing to increase is duplicative and under subscribe. the fact is that the va already has three housing programs for homeless vets, in addition to the program the lady is talking about. let me tell you just a little bit about the three programs which currently are funding. we have a homeless providers grant and per diem program. it helps public and nonprofit organizations establish and operate supportive housing and service centers for homeless vets. in 2013, we paid $235 million for this program. the second program along these lines is acquired property sells for homeless providers program. this makes va foreclosed properties available for sale to homeless provider organizations

added 20%-50% discount. a third program is the supportive services for veterans families program. this provides grants and technical assistance to community-based nonprofit organizations to help bats and their families stay in their homes. we find this fy 13 at $100 million, fy14 projected at $300 million. not only is the hud program that the amendment is addressing duplicative, it is also underutilized. as of january of this year, there were 2563 unused vouchers that are not being used in this program. so there is not a need for the additional funding for these programs. secondly, this amendment is based on a couple of wrong assumptions. one of those assumptions is regarding the phantom savings that she claims from the

overseas contingency fund. the cuts are based on spending that will not occur. it is a spending reduction in the projected increase from the cbo cost projection. basically, this is where they are taking the current funds being spent and overseas contingency operations in afghanistan is year, and they are extending those out for 10 years, when we know the president has said there will not be a full engagement that there is today. it would be just like budgeting if you had a family member who bought a car, and then have the cbo come in and say because in february you bought a car, then every month during the coming year, that family is going to buy another car, and just because they decide not to buy a car, that families saving all that money and they can spend that over here. the fact is, the family was never going to buy the car to begin with, and there is no real

savings. that is what this amendment is based on, the phantom savings here. so there is not the money as far as the savings goes. the second wrong assumption is that we do not need to use some funds and still have some in place for the war. is a radical departure from the commitment we all made after september 11 to provide these resources to our men and women nevethere. the president has indicated will have a continuing non-combat presence in order to promote stability and to prevent the kind of backsliding that allowed for the rise of the taliban. it is at fantasy that as of september 2014, we will still have 30,000 troops deployed in

afghanistan, and at the end of that we don't need any bunning at all. we do need funding to make sure our men and women will continue to be safe. the dot has already had cut. there is a $78 billion of the efficiencies and cuts under secretary gates that have occurred already, and then the first part of the budget control act/$487 billion over the next 10 years. this year we are experiencing a $43 billion additional cut with the sequestered. if our budget is not passed, there will be a total of additional $500 billion cut from a national defense. that is almost a trillion dollars from our national defense. we cannot sustain that as a country. there is only a few things we are supposed to be doing here in congress, and one of them is to provide for the common defense.

the fact is, the department of defense only represents 20% of our budget. under this latest proposal, we are once again going to cut our national defense, that will harm our national security. the secretary of defense, leon panetta, has said that if it sequestration is not ended in the national defense arena, it will hollow out our forces. some examples that take place, if the budget is not passed, there would be 100,000 fewer soldiers and marines. the navy will likely have to mothball ships. there would be elimination of 250 fighter aircraft and higher fees for military health care. we need to prioritize our national defense and not cut it for a program that is already fully funded and underutilized.

i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, to keep our priority is a country for common defense. i yield to the gentleman from california. >> i thank the delayed for yielding to me. first let's all agree we are not going to cut funding for veterans. all of us on both sides of the aisle support veterans' benefits and will continue to do so. you ought to be very happy, we are cutting defense spending. probably more than a lot of us are comfortable cutting it. we are flying bombers that are older than some of your grandfather's. we have -- we have been flying b-52's until they are 90 years old. we are at the lowest ship level since the spanish-american war. we are dropping marines. we are dropping army personnel.

i am afraid we are going down pat that i am uncomfortable with. but that is a decision that is made collectively by all of us here. we are going to do that. we are cutting defense and that is part of the process we are going through. but this amendment would hamstring the united states ability to conduct operation afghanistan. it is irresponsible to decrease funding for troops that are in combat right now. this is not a workable alternative. the goal of this amendment is to expedite the withdrawal from afghanistan. that means we should not simply cut off funding. that means a separate policy debate should not be part of this budget process. the president of the united states has determined the troops would be withdrawn by 2014. we will have a residual force. that is not for this budget committee to decide. i would hope that we could

strongly defeat this amendment and back your president' in his support of the withdrawal of afghanistan in 2014. i yield back the balance of my time i yield to the gentle lady from indiana. >> i guess wanted to add my concern about this amendment as well. we have sat every week and listen to readings in hearings about what is happening with our national defense, our responsibility in afghanistan. it is essential to allow the department of defense to plan for the future. two weeks ago, general james mattis testified and said that "budget ambiguity is starting to drive our strategy. what would use most to some degree of budget predictability. will we start having these

conversations about in danger in our national security, we get into the arena of politicizing what should not be political, our support for our men and women in harm's way. that should not wonder if their funding is going to be cut to expand duplicative projects at home. >> i would just like to close and save this has some duplicative spending our program that has adequate funding now for our veterans, whom we all support. uses phantom savings and cut third offense further at a time of war and jeopardize is our men and women in uniform who are keeping us save endangered places around the world. >> will the gentle lady yield the remainder of her time? our president has not submitted his budget yet, so we don't know what the afghanistan number is. the gentle lady is recognized to close. >> let me just indicate that

this amendment leaves $70 billion in the overseas contingency operation for 2014, which is what the cbo estimated was needed to deploy personnel, which would be 30,000. secondly, let me just mention that 12 years of funding operations in afghanistan and three special appropriations that are exempt from budget limits, we need to stop that. we did not meet a plan for the future by putting aside money in accounts that may or may not ever be necessary. we need to recognize also, and this is a shame and disgrace that we have over 62,000 homeless veterans on any given night in 2012. the veterans program is an important program. the housing program by hud is not exempt from sequestere.

this would at least three of those resources to ensure that homeless veterans get the assistance they need. we need to get this budget with the pentagon in line with the reality is of what we are dealing with in terms of strong national security and some transparency, so that the american public will understand that these words have been funded of budget, and it is time to stop. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment from the general lady -- the gentle lady from california. a roll-call vote is requested. >> mr. price no. mr. garrett no. mr. campbell no. mr. calvert no. mr. kohl no. mr. mecklin talk -- mr.

mcclintock no. ms. black no. mr. flores no. mr. woodall no. ms. blackburn no. mr. nunnelee no. ms. hartzler no. mr. messer no. mr. wright no. mr. williams no. mr. duffy no. mr. van hollen aye.

ms. schwartz. mr. ryan aye. ms. moore. mr. mcdermott. ms. lee aye. mr. cicciline aye. mr. jefferies aye. mr. hudson aye. mr. blumenauer aye. mr. schrader aye. ms. moore aye.

mr. mcdermott aye. mr. chairman no. mr. chairman, on that boat the ayes are 16, the noes 22. >> are there other amendments? it is closed, i apologize. had he been present, you would have voted aye. i apologize. mr. blumenauer? the clerk will report the amendment.

let's ask unanimous consent that the role of the previous vote be open and record the vote as aye. mr. blumenauer has an amendment at the desk. >> mr. chairman, an amendment offered by mr. blumenauer, an amendment related to transportation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have had some spirited debate about the national budget deficit. one area that we really have not addressed is a threat, i think, that is affecting all of our communities. i think each of us have heard about it. that is the infrastructure deficit. it is no secret that the american society of civil engineers has been doing its by- your scorecard of the status of america's infrastructure. it finds it is repeatedly

declining. over $1.50 trillion that is required just to bring things up to standard. we have a massive problem. the president mentioned in the state of the union 70,000 structurally deficient bridges. we have every day in america, people who are strangling in congestion. we are falling behind what is happening in the other parts of the world in terms of having a modern, connected, efficient transportation system. the only way we have been able to survive in the last three or four years has been by transferring in the general fund resources, and infusion from the recovery act. we had a little legislative sleight of hand, but as we

discussed earlier with your staff, we will see about a third reduction if we are moving forward with this budget blueprint. even at current levels, which is going to require something on the order of $18 billion just to keep us at inadequate current levels, we are struggling. what i am proposing is that -- is interesting, we've got some great policy statements in the back of the budget here. i don't necessarily agree with everything that is there. i would feel better if there were some sort of policy statement about infrastructure. i appreciate your chairman -- appreciate your willingness of the committee, after we get through this excitement, to have a hearing at some point in the foreseeable future where the committee can hear from people who are involved in trying to

maintain transportation systems, sewer, water, the whole range of areas that are seriously under us all. but now, i would recommend that we at least use some of that magic fairy dust that ways and means is going to use to be able to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, be able to lower the top rate to 25%. you go through the areas that are outlined here on page 73, whatever that magic ways and means very dust is that allows us to do these magical things, let's do the same and at least at a minimum be able to maintain and increase in the budget authority and the outlays for the function for hundred so that we can continue at least at the current, inadequate level, rather than see a reduction of about one-third.

i think this is an important policy statement for the committee in advance of what i hope is a serious conversation about what is a crisis for many people in the country. ironically, i think most of us would agree infrastructure investment is the quickest way to provide family wage jobs and improve the economy in every one of our districts, in every state in the union. i would turn, if i could, to my colleague, mr. polcan, who has some of the rations. >> i am glad you brought this amendment forward, mr. blumenauer. when i was on the joint committee on finance, we were the only committee in the country that had to approve every single dollar that came through from the recovery dollars. in our state, every single dollar came to our committee. i got to see exactly where those investment dollars went to our

transportation projects. we had a report at the time from the road building and vertical construction industry, not your most left-wing organization, that said 54,000 jobs were saved or created in wisconsin because of that investment in infrastructure. i remember sitting in this very room and i asked dr. elmendorf that same question. i said is it true, and he set up to 3.3 million jobs were saved or created because of those recovery dollars. i can tell you in wisconsin, we saw the benefit. it came from the private sector. we saw the benefit for small businesses -- the infrastructure that needed that repair. we saw people immediately working thanks to those dollars. this is exactly what we need to be doing right now in the economy, not squeezing jobs by

investing in infrastructure, getting the benefit of those investments in terms of jobs right now and the infrastructure in the future. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. this amendment really is about rebuilding america. we do report card every year on america's infrastructure. in every category, roads, bridges, ports, are grades for failing. it was not republican or democratic issue. we need to invest in rebuilding our country. there are three reasons we should do it now. number one, it is cost- efficient. the longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes, like deferred maintenance on your car. does not get cheaper, it's more expensive. now is the most cost-effective time to do it. second, it is critical to rebuilding our economy that we be in a position to have an infrastructure that supports our

economy, that can move goods and services and information to compete in the 21st century. third, it is a public sector challenge. to figure what happened in new orleans, what happened with the minnesota bridge that collapsed. this will continue if we don't address this issue. there's lots of debate about the proper role of government. we all agree that public infrastructure is at the core of one of government's most important responsibilities. it is not the case that people pitching in to fix a bridge or hold a bake sale to extend rail service. this is an opportunity to invest in something that will put people back to work and help rebuild our economy so we have a platform to move goods and services to compete successfully. fundamentally the men and presents a choice to invest in rebuilding america. i urge you to support rebuilding america and support this amendment. i thank the gentleman for

yielding. >> i appreciate your comments and the opportunity to put this before the committee. historically, rebuilding and renewing america and investing in infrastructure used to be a bipartisan objective. i hope in this congress before we are done that there may be a way for us to rekindle the spirit and be able to zero in on it. all of the work that would be done here is overwhelmingly done by the private sector. your contractors, your local craftspeople. a huge investment in small business. even the large contracts are broken up and subcontracted out. it has a multiplier effect is dramatic and will help get the economy moving, and they are overwhelmingly family wage jobs did in has a broad economic impact and leverages other investments.

these are opportunities to be able to jump-start project, to be able to force those partnerships, attract other infrastructure investments. i would hope that you would at least approve this amendment that would establish that we are not going to have a one-third reduction with the adoption of this budget, should it be somehow enacted. >> the time for the gentleman has expired. >> i have several folks that are going to speak to this as well. the budget itself does not recommend a one-third reduction. we will use the highway trust fund and set up a bill next year. by next year we will need a process in place the same as we had last year to set up a

separate account and offset and additional funding, which we assume we will. there is a place to be able to put that funding so we have a reserve account set up and ready for us. this budget itself does not said how much we are going to spend. it just sets up a process for that spending in future days to be able to reject i was a member of the committee last year and walked through the process. i was very engaged in the conference committee. there are some areas we wanted as far as moving the ball and making construction less expensive, and there were some areas that are more challenging. this is an issue that does have to be resolved in the days ahead. we are both very passionate advocates for the infrastructure and transportation will have as a nation. i would like to yield two minutes to mr. mecklin thought. >> it used to be that -- to mr.

mcclintock. >> our friends on the left began raiding highway funds for purposes unrelated to our highways. for bike trails and museums and mass transit subsidies, bridges to know where, outrageously expensive bullet trains, and on and on. now with a highway trust fund running a deficit because of these raids, we are told we just have to raise taxes. well, we need new highway capacity. here is a radical idea. maybe we ought to stop stealing our highway funds and diverting them for purposes unrelated to our highways. maybe we ought to protect our highway funds for highway use. if there is still a need, the proper way to finance the highways is through highway taxes on consumers, so we can get accurate price signals of how much the commute cost every day, and not raise a general tax

on job producers. it destroys jobs, it does not create them. remember what i said earlier. the government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy that it does not first take out of the same economy. what we don't see as clearly are the jobs that are destroyed or prevented from performing as the government first takes that dollar out of the economy. we see those lost jobs and chronic unemployment and a stagnating economy. the government cannot create wealth. can transfer jobs from the productive sector to the government sector by taxing one and spending on the other. it can transfer jobs from one part of the productive sector by taxing and transfer them to another part by subsidizing it. but it cannot create jobs. these policies are causing enormous damage to our economy, and i wish you folks would stop it.

[laughter] >> we are running close on time. mr. williams, for two minutes. >> thank you. nobody agrees more than me. i am in the transportation business. we need good infrastructure. however, this a man and raises taxes, and that is a bad idea. i am job creator for 41 years. you don't create jobs by raising taxes on small businesses and workers. employees actually root for their business to make a profit, so they can one day realize the same dreams they visualize others have. 80% of jobs in this country are created by small businesses.

if the democratic plan works, tax, tax, tax. why do we have 7.8% unemployment? it just does not work. in an economy of bailouts, tax increases, class warfare, regulation and a tax on small business employees, it is not an economy. we need to find a better way, we need opportunities to give us a chance to build back our infrastructure, but not through high taxation burden on small business and employees. i yield back. >> mr. blumenauer, i appreciate your bringing this up. it is an important topic and i think you laid it out pretty well. americans want to drive on good roads and have an infrastructure system that can move goods and services about the country as inexpensive as possible.

they just seem reluctant to pay for it. their elected officials seemed reluctant to charge for it. therefore we end up with this tension that is in place, where we need to improve our infrastructure, but we don't know how to pay for it. i am not certain that your amendment is the best way to do it, but i am certain that something needs to be done. as the vice chair of the subcommittee, i would agree, something has to be done. the language in your bill concerns me a little bed. you want to pay for it -- concerns kilobit. you want to eliminate egregious tax breaks that was put in by a democrat led congress and signed by democrat president. it was not egregious then because the idea behind it was to create jobs. then removing loopholes on the

international corporate tax system. what i would suggest is that what is egregious is our tax system. we need to let ways and means do their work. try to figure out the solution to this, mr. blumenauer, is a top priority. i think the best place to deal with it is that the authorizing committee of transportation and infrastructure. with that i yield back. >> mr. ryan, are you still ready with that 15 seconds? >> he was talking about the productive and the unproductive sector. when we are talking about police and fire and teachers and the military, the insinuation is that somehow they are not productive because they are not in the private sector. i just think we need to be careful, because there is a

level tone of disrespect their that diminishes their service to our country. i yield back. >> there you go again. why do the democrats have to set up straw men because they cannot attack the real issue? the implication is that when government takes money out of the earnings people make in the private sector by creating and exchanging goods and services, those jobs the government creates a taking that money out of the productive sector only last as long as the dollars last. as soon as the dollars are gone, those jobs are gone. solyndra was supposed to create 1100 new jobs. it did, and then it cost taxpayers a half billion dollars. when the money ran out, the jobs were gone. now we are a half billion dollars for the behind, and those folks are unemployed. but there is a unique challenge

as we deal with transportation that is difficult for us. you say let's just continue to add more money, or you can ask, why does it cost so much? you begin to get to the driving force of that. if we are doing something in the federal government that actually increases the costs, we've got to shut that down. if there is some way an individual state or contractor can do it better, cheaper, last longer, we should explore that. there are several research studies to determine how we can make surfaces last longer. how can we make this function better? there is an ongoing argument, how we fund it this long term? i have no issue with us talking about this, and we should talk about it. the issue is, who handles this best? should the federal government's

-- at what point does a federal connection end and the state connection takeover? inherently, states usually make those decisions less expensively. 80% of construction projects in oklahoma fall in the category of exclusion. they are coming in seven months faster now. let's try to bring down the cost. let's get out of the way. i yield back. >> i was disappointed to hear my friend from california attacking ronald reagan who established the 80-20 split for transit, recognizing that transit, cycling, getting people walking often is the quickest and cheapest way to get highway capacity. that was ronald reagan that established that.

you tried in the last budget to mug transit and the alternatives and it blew up the in your face. you could not bring that bill to the floor. i suggest we look at putting resources there. yo directu could the ways and means committee. -- you directed the way and means committee. that is where the money comes from. i suggest that fairy dust that they are going to get rid of the atm and matt lee have a revenue neutral, let's have that on the infrastructure. i hope we can have a more spirited conversation but we can stop by -- start are not cutting it by a third with the adoption of this budget from mark. >> hopefully we can get rid of all the very best. -- of all the fairy dust. the roman from oregon -- all those in favor say aye -- the

gentleman from oregon, all those in favor say aye. nay? >> [roll call]

aha the wayes are - ayes are 17, the nos are 22. >> the -- the hamas and agreed to. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the consent i am asking for is

to knock the time for tier 2 amendments to 10 minutes each. the amendment for mr. jefferies will stay at this 15 minute levels. without objection, so ordered. tier 2. all but one are 10 minutes. 4 then 5 then 1. 1 with the close. who has an amendment? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. >> an amendment offered by mr. cicilline relating to education. >> one of the most important investments we can make as a nation is in the education of our children. as we make choices in this

budget and set priorities, if we fail to address the needs of our learners and those seeking higher education, we do so at our own peril. in the challenges we face today will pale in the comparison to the crisis we will face if we fail to short americans of the education, training and skills necessary. by 2018, more than 60% of jobs will require some post secondary education and training. by 2018, we will need 22 million new college graduates will fall short by several million carry with more jobs requiring some level of post secondary study or training, it is clear now more than ever that education is one of the biggest keys to economic growth. our students have the knowledge and skills necessary to keep america out globally competitive yet we have a budget proposal

that cuts $168 billion out of mandatory higher education funding over 10 years. congress is that the 2010 pay for the increase in grants. the maximum pell grant of recover less than one-third of the cost of attending public for your college spirit the lowest since the start of the program. freezing it for 10 years with lower it even further to 17% of college costs. the program bears the name of its champion, the great late senator claiborne. he said the strength of the united states is not the weapons of mass destruction that we have but the sum total of the education and character of our

people. the proposal before us this honor is not just his profound work a legacy but with unnecessarily -- would unnecessarily harm thousands of students who rely on progress to access jobs in today's economy. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield to my distinguished colleague from pennsylvania. >> thank you. i am pleased to add my support to this amendment. we have had some discussion about education already this evening. education is key to succeeding in a competitive 21st century, the job market. that is true for all of our kids. you don't have a good education, you cannot be able to compete in the current marketplace. this republican budget has cuts

on top of cuts. it will slash millions from early talk of education. at the pennsylvania, we have seen our state cut a billion dollars out of education. we cannot do with less. it will be very harmful to our state. the elimination of headstart -- we know education matters so much. we simply cannot cut our way to prosperity, or to a skilled workforce. we cannot cut our way to better schools, college affordability or greater opportunity for our children. many of us would not be here today without great education. we have to make one of our priorities access to quality public education. we cannot walk away from that.

i yield back and fully support this amendment. >> thank you. mr. nunnelee is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. chairman.asu since 2008 will be spent $38 billion on this program, it has almost doubled, adding $52 billion in 2009 and anorhter $10 billion in 2010. there are sterile -- there are still far too many children reading under grade level. my sister says every time washington put more money in the program, we add more bureaucracy. my sister told me it is not worth the extra money for all the time i have to spend complying with washington paper work. she said the best we could do is get out of her hair. with that, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman

from indiana. >> thank you. i hear a lot of consensus. we all love kids and leave the next generation of americans should have great opportunities. -- love kids and belive the next generation of americans should have great opportunities. this budget resolution will and greece -- will increase the function in fiscal year 2014 by $1 billion. we will spend about $16 billion more in the last year of the budget on education than the first year. we are spending more but we have to slow the rate of growth. americans understand that despite the best of our intentions, we have to understand -- behalf to stop spending money we do not have. this but distorts the process.

i yield back. -- this budget starts that process. i yield back. >> thank you. one thing that has struck me today is that the folks who might travel or own jets, aircraft, somehow we get some kind of satisfaction at the same they do not pay their fair share and if they just did more, we could pay for all these programs these amendments subscribe to. i want to put a different face on that. a real face on who we hurt when we say these ridiculous things. there they are. this is dan and andy montgomery. do they look like globetrotting millionaires to you? one way we know they're not millionaires is, look at how happy they are.

they are small business owners from indiana. they own an fbo, a fixed base operator. they serve planes of all shapes and sizes. 13,000 privately owned landing facilities nationwide. they service plays that are critical to agriculture, fishing, forestry, that allow us to volunteer. we fly children and adults in needed medical care on non emergency missions. i have gotten fuel there. i visited with the perdue students who ran the fast -- the first desk. i wonder if they stopped at 50 for obamacare reasons.

they help grow our economy. i simply say when we demagoguing the jet tax loophole and those who might benefit from a simple business depreciation schedule, you might think about the real face of general of the asian -- general aviation and the people who work in it and the people we heard. >> mr. chairman, we yield back the balance of our time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. justice by quickly to the claim that it acts -- that it adds, that puts at risk education funding in particular. when you raise one the mets -- one amount then put these

educational programs in great peril. there is enormous pressure because of shrinking funding for education priorities, making it even more important that the federal government be there to support states, cities and towns. and prevent we'll get in education services. this amendment will add funding to support -- to prevent cuts to programs like head start, after- school programs and pell grants. this is the rights of the priorities for our country. it is important we make this investment for the success of our young people. >> the time to the dedham has expired. -- the time for the gentleman has expired. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. nos have it. the clerk will acll the rol -- will call the roll.

[roll call]

her

>> also was -- on that vote. >> anybody else? >> on that vote, 17 to 22. >> the ahmadinejad agreed to. >> the amendment is not agreed

to. >> we have just come to a sequester where we have seen the new hampshire cut by 8%. the uncertainty of the lack of funding, it is hurting basic research and the work we do at nih and facilities across the country. there is no other way. it is a large source of medical resources -- medical research and has improved health and cured disease, improved the quality of life. i cannot imagine there is anyone in this room or country that has not been touched by the work that scientists do at nih. we talk about this -- from

groups that talk to us about cures and possibilities but this is about the whole of cures and treatments and devices that america has brought to the world. it is not sustain if we continue to cut it. that is what this budget would do. in pennsylvania, we are proud to have a number of research institutions funded by new hampshire -- funded by nih. it is an economic driver. as a porter for many of us. in of philadelphia -- that is important for many of oz. -- many of us.

biotech companies are spun off from this. if you stop the beginning of that pop line -- that pipe line, you are cutting off opportunities. to fix that, this amendment lose $3 billion from the overseas contingency account. does not raise taxes. $3 billion and move it to medical research so we do not lose this opportunity. i want to offer the opportunity for two colleagues to add their words of support. >> thank you very much.

native american tribes recognized that a tribe is going to die when they eat the seed corn because there is nothing to plant in the spring. this is the seed corn of our society . in 1998 to 2003, the senate republic and moved to double the money going to nih. what we are doing here in the midst of all of this is cutting it away. pip you don't fill a eline, when there is no money for research, you are and in the pipeline that will continue the medical advances that have led this country. other countries are making investments. we are not. that is why this $3 billion is

very important. >> the time has expired. i would like to recognize ms. blackburn for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have to agree that the uncertainty that surrounds the budgeting process is hurting medical research. that is why we have fought every year to make certain a budget passed and signed into law. we hope that this year, it will happen. i do want to give you a assurance because this budget assumes no reductions in nih funding. it reflects the strong support for the nih coordination to invest in basic mike -- invest in basic biomedical research to uncover new lawless that can lead to better health and disease chores for everyone. i join you in wanting to see

those cures. i lost a mother in law to alzheimer's. my dad just died january 30. i would give every cent i've got to cure this. but what we have to realize is that while we want them to do that, we don't micro manage nih's buget. crs says congress except the parties established through the complex process of weighing scientific opportunity in public health needs. nih has 27 as it used in centers that fund research across a wide array -- has 22 centers that fund research across a wide array. in these tough budget times,

every agency that supports public health and research collectively must work to ensure that all resources are spent in the most effective manner to avoid waste and duplication. if we coordinate the activity -- [indiscernible] we want to make sure nih spends its money well but the of the risers face a lot of problems with the nih -- but the aut horizers face a lot of problems with the nih. it is important we work with them to hold hearings and shame nih into doing a better job of prioritizing their funds. >> i appreciate your comments.

i want to talk about funding for nih. we strongly support funding. his budget assumes the reductions whatsoever in nih -- this budget assumes no reductions whatsoever in nih. house republicans balked -- increase funding -- house republicans fought to increase funding. this budget committee is not where those levels are decided. the processes we go through is where that funding level will be decided. i think the amendment may be

well-intentioned but is not appropriate to be included in this budget at this time. i encourage rejection of the amendment and yield back. >> thank you. >> a minute cyclos. >> thank you. -- a minute to close. >> thank you. when the whole -- when there is a cut in the whole function, it could be a sign. if we want to make sure we are going to protect n.i.h., let's add this money back of the cost to the sequester. that is what i'm suggesting. we agree on this. you go home and hears stories. it is about our families and our future. i know scientist at nih. my brother is a scientist at

nih. he has cured a disease that hits young adults. this bill -- my amendment does nothing to say where the funding goes. i agree we should leave it up to nih to decide how it is distributed but let's this -- but let's agree on this. >> time for the gentle lady has expired. all this -- those in favor say aye. those oppose say no. the no's have it. [roll call]

>> are there any others who wish to vote? >> on that vote, the ayes are 17, nos 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. does anybody else have an amendment? mr. jefferies. the staff will hand out copies. this is a 15, correct? >> an amendment offered by mr. jefferies related to interest rate -- student loan interest rates. >> that gentleman is recognized. >> this is designed to increase the student loan interest rate to 6.8% scheduled to take place.

it will be for the increase until june of 2014. -- it iwll defer the increased until june of 2014. 70 million students are at risk of their interest rates bubbling -- 17 million students are at risk of their interest rates doubling. i am hopeful the same level of interest in the debt crisis that confronts college students and graduates will exist today. the price of education keeps going up. the financial aid available keeps going down. this budget will make a bad situation worse by cutting $168 billion over a 10 year period in

mandatory higher education funding. reductions in financial aid and a distressed economy -- steve loan debt now exceeds more than one dollar trillion -- student loan debt now exceeds more than $1 trillion. it is a staggering amount that will inhibit the ability of recent college graduates to purchase a home, start a family, and pursue the american dream. ifthe objective of this proposed budget is designed to create a pth to -- path to prosperity, we must reduce the burden of excessive student loan debt that our young people are experiencing. it is a debt burden that is stifling. by voting for this amendment, we

can help breath life back into the american dream for more than 7 million college students. i yield to the gentle lady from pennsylvania. >> thank you. thank you for offering this amendment. the issue of student debt is at a sick -- is a significant one. it is putting young people at a huge disadvantage if they can get through college. then they finish and have a tremendous amount of debt. we have tuition and fees -- [indiscernible] they are about $12,000 for public four year, over $32,000 for a private university.

a ford higher education, more than 70% -- to afford higher education in pennsylvania, more than 70% of students take out loans. pell grants make a big difference. cutting programs really disadvantages are students and their families -- cuting ptin pl grants really disadvantages our students and their families. let's do what is right for businesses, families and the next-generation and make sure they can afford to go to college and borrow the money the hey need. >> i will resist the temptation

to compare the cost we are adding to the burden of students to the benefits we are giving to the grantwood family from indiana but i will talk about the reality of what is happening in this country. the government is lending money to city group and bank of america and morgan stanley at zero interest rates. they are taking that money and lending it to their best clients at 3%. what we're talking about today is saying we are not going to take that same benefit with the students to borrow money in this country to advance themselves and get an education. we are going to charge them double what they are paying now, even though it is costing us nothing. we are already making money. and we are going to charge this

to those who arrested loans to continue to make loans as 0% to the largest banks in this country and corporations. this is a question of equity fairness and compassion for the people we should be helping the most. i support the amendment. >> i thank the gentleman from new york and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the plan before us makes serious deep cuts in pell grant programs are reducing benefits and eligibility. so many middle-class families are struggling to send their families to college. this reflects the wrong priorities. forcing steven to take out more loans to pay for college -- forcing students to take out more loans to pay for college [indiscernible]

this does not reflect our values as a country. i urge my colleagues to support mr. jefferies' amendment. it invest in our nation's future and is fully paid for. >> thank you. the gentleman from virginia as recognized for seven and a half minutes. >> millions of americans who have needed and benefited from stallone's -- from student loans, making college accessible and affordable for every american is a shared american values. it is a commitment that is deeply reflected in the budget we have presented. it is important we be mindful of and aware of the range of payment options that didn't have. they can take payments out as

far as 30 years. there is a mechanism by which students can look at their income as they get out and graduate. it is an income based method of determining how much they will have to pay. it will be helpful to hear the prospective offered by my colleagues. >> this one is particularly irritating. a few short years ago, 80% of the student loans into this country were in the private sector. students have loans at significantly lower rates than they are now. our friends on the other side of the aisle said we have a better idea. we want the government to control all of these things and we want the government to have a set, fixed rate of interest so

the government can take more money from students and parents for their education. they set it at 6.8% then loaded for a couple years so the shock of the increase in the interest is not too great. it the private sector were allowed to be where it was, now it is basically shut out, the loan rate would be less than 3.4%. ask yourself why it is 3.4% right now. because washington said that is what it must be. what a wasteful process that we have right now for students. it does not make any sense at all. to march in on your white horse and say we have to keep it at

3.4% -- how about if you let the thing work for students, parents, and families out there? the rate would be significantly less than 3.4%. the energy and work force committee had a hearing on it today. i am hopeful they will come forward with legislation that will allow it to return to controlled by its critics and their parents. -- by studtents and their parents. i yield back. >> thank you. i appreciate some of the earlier comments. as we go through this debate, i want to make one thing clear --

the number one threat to young america is this president's terrible economy. as we go court, we need to remember there is one fact we cannot escape -- as we go forward, we need to remember there is one fact the cannot escape -- over half of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed as a result of those policies. another great threat to the young people in this country is the national debt we are piling on them every year. does pass the bill out of this chamber, most voted for it -- we just passed a bill out of this chamber, most voted for it. as others have said, we need to get politicians out of the business of setting interest rates.

some laughed when it was said earlier but history shows that when the market controls these rates, the rates are lower. as the best we can do for young people. i yield back. >> i would like to start off differently. i have 75,000 college students in mike hd. the biggest impediment is the lack of jobs because of the obama economy. if we want to create an environment where they can pay their loans off, why don't we face -- focus on helping their future but not leaving it full federal debt? but protecting medicare for the long run -- and by protecting medicare for the long run?

we do not need any more corporate welfare. we do not need the federal government taking over other people's businesses to seize the student loan program. the members of congress, there are not many people smart enough to say [indiscernible] call rates would be lowered if we had not had the special government try to take over business and set rates. let's turn this back over to the private sector. we can do it the right way and adopt the budget as we have proposed it so we can put these men and women to work and save their medicare and not leave them with a budget that is unbalanecd beyond ten years. >> what , as graduates want more

than anything else is a job when they come out -- what college graduates want more than is a job when they come out. one thing holding up. i hope you will work with us on keeping tuition affordable. i yield back >> greater than mr. jefferies is >> there is a range of options currently available to college students. this budget which did away the overwhelming majority of the protections currently in place, including the income contingent

repayment program you referenced. the notion that interest rates would be lowered in 3.4%, there is no evidence based in reality to suggest that would be the case. it would be unreasonable for us to put the future of american workers, college students, in the hands of the same financial institutions that resulted in the collapse of the economy and one that saddeld us with $22 trillion in economic loss. we should continue to invest in our students. we should pursue relief as relates to that measure. >> the time is expired. on the green to the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye -- on agreeing to the amendment

offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those ioppose say no. the nos have it. [roll call]

>> the car will report. >> on that vote, the ayes are 17, nos 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. we have reached consensus on time limits for tier 3. we would like to move it down to 5 minutes with the exception of #23 offered by mrs. lee. we are working on coming to an agreement on a possible language. on no. 24, 28, they are

amendments be believe will have unanimous support. those would not take the full five minutes. so the majority has agreed to sacrifice half a minute. there will be three minutes and two minutes on our side for the total of five. without objection, so ordered. you can have a full time but we will not take all the time. do you have an amendment? the staff will submit copies. >> mr. chairman, an amendment relating to the consumer financial protection bureau.

>> the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you. this amendment will change the resolution to include language supporting the work of the new consumer financial protection bureau and its financial structure. criticallywork is important in the aftermath of the financial crisis. we need to protect investors, consumers and guard against the problems that helped send our economy into the deepest recession in generations. d cfpb is proving it is up to this important task -- the cfpb is proving it is up to this important task. that is more than the bureau's entire annual budget. 6 million americans have received a refund based on these actions appeared the american people have declared to

their actions that they support the bureau in its mission. mortgages, credit cards, protestant loans, checking accounts and credit reporting agencies -- they are taking steps to issue rules to rein in the mortgage industry. an ability to repay will to protect consumers from irresponsible lenders, establishing strong protections for homeowners facing foreclosures and the rule preventing lenders from steering consumers into risky mortgages. your colleagues in the senate pledged not to confirm the president's nominee, richard cordray. the election is not over. we are still waiting for the results, apparently. maybe we should not be here.

last year as a result the reconciliation, the house approved legislation to undermine the cfpb's budget for once -- budget. for once, woul dyou please h elp the little guy. >> i looked on page 52 of the irresponsible and balanced budget narrative and how it was like the nightmare on wall street. to realize that the too big to fail banks were going to re- emerge, we have an orderly liquidation facility in dodd frank. i see all my buddies on the top row who were on the financial- services committee, you know you did not let us assess the fees in advance so the government

would have to come. we had death panels to kill these too big to fail banks. it's like freddy. they'er back again -- they're back again. i yield back. >> we have a great candidate here many senators have complemented. richard cordray has a great relationship with the senators in ohio. this is a perfect opportunity to put a well qualified person in there to keep an eye on us by behalf of the consumers. i would like to lend my support to this amendment. best of luck to mr. courter a. -- best of luck to mr. cordray.

>> thank you. dodd frank basically gave the cfpb director the sole authority to command over 1000 bureaucrats, spend millions of dollars with no restriction and a congressional oversight and decide what financial products we can have or not have. basically it says to take away from consumers their choice, their decision making process, not enhance it. the cfpb says consumers, you will have a limitation as to what financial products will now be available to you in the future. the number of products on the marketplace will be less. how does it do all this ? by putting 1000 eurocrats in front of the consumer. -- 1000 bureaucrats in front of

the consumer. it says you can't offer a product unless to offer it to everyone. that is what this legislation would also do year, creating another pfennig a crisis. who is given all this? in lokke welcome overpaid people. the president says you are rich if you make over to let a thousand dollars -- a lot of overpaid people. the president says you are risch if you make over $200,000. our internships, we don't pay

ours. they get thousands working at cfpb. there is no congressional oversight because of dodd frank. they took away from the senate's the confirmation progress. it is a terrible program. we should vote against this amendment. >> we all want to be treated fairly and transparency when dealing with banks. when you look at the cfpb, when they make rules, they look at consumer protection. when they make those rules, a provision allows for those rules to be overturned by the fsoc. that rule can be overturned if it would create systemic risk in

our financial industry. here you haven't lost the banks -- here you have big wall steret banks that could claim the rule could impact them negatively and they wanted overturned. if you are a small community bank or credit union, you can't this rule isd say going to affect me negatively. in essence, you have left the small banks and credit unions voiceless to have a say. that is wrong. if you look at the ability to have oversight over the committee, we don't fund it.

our appropriations process as one of the best ways we have oversight. this committee is funded by the federal reserve which does that give us any opportunity to step in and look at what they're doing. their entrance making $40,000 a summer. this is outrageous -- there are interns making $40,000 a summer. this is outrageous. i yield back. >> 5 seconds. >> i would happily zero out the budget. >> i would happily we directed toward indian health care -- redirect it toward indian health care. [laughter] >> dimity support right now for my democratic colleagues for richard cordray -- there might be support right now for my democratic colleagues for richard cordray.

>> time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey has a minute to close. >> of a degree -- i would i agree with you 100%. hopefully that is the direction we're going in. this is a one agency, that is not the job of the consumer protection agency that is the job of other agencies. they have not done their jobs. the major reasons we had problems in the economy in 2007 and 2008, it was not police, firefighters, teachers, it wasnd the reason. it wasn't the reason we invested too much money in the infrastructure. both sides of the aisle say we

did not invest enough. this is because it was unregulated, is what we're talking about. i ask you to consider it. the deviation -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the noes have it. >> i'm not going to ask for a vote. when you look at this -- you know, let me say this. i will only take 40ing seconds. -- 40 seconds. let me say this to you. i don't particularly like any of your bill on this budget. >> we have gathered that. >> but, i respect your intellect

so don't denigrate what i'm saying. i only say what i mean. but what i'm saying is there is no deviation in the vote. >> just wait. we're getting to this in a few moments. >> come on. >> that is we -- there are other amendments at the desk. who is next? >> thank you, mr. chair. i hope the deviation begins with number 15. >> perhaps not. >> mr. chairman on the amendment offered in relation to the department of energy. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i want to support funding to support clean energy through two programs. the first is renewable energy

known as e.e.r.e. the next is arpe. they save money for businesses and consumers and they create jobs. if we're interested in winning the future we need to make these type of forward-looking programs a priority. thanks to investments in renewable energy we have almost doubled the renewable energy since 2008. they power more than 12 million homes in the united states. the more we invest the better the technology gets and the moore affordable clean energy becomes. when it comes to these programs i have an example of what it can do from my district in northern california. a university received funding for the hydrogen transportation

project and the goal was to demonstrate a completely clean renewable system for the valley region of southern california. the funding from the program leveraged state funds to meet the $4 million project costs. the first fuel solar car drove in 2008. shortly after the first fueling hydrogen fueling station. the first commercially available cars are starting to roll of the manufacturing lines of major car makers. they are going on sale in europe because they their fueling infrastructure is ahead of ours. these vehicles have enhanced efficiency that is equivalent to 60 miles a gallon and they refuel in minutes. they could revolutionize vehicle travel. for the second program, it

targets high impact energy technology that drives innovation and private investment. technical achievements have spurred millions of dollars and private sector funding to a number of projects. these are investments that also mean jobs. a rerent report shows that communities across the country have announced clean energy project are expected to create 110,000 new clean energy jobs. america should be leading the world in clean energy. if we continue to staver the funding, -- starve the funding, we'll be following the rest of the world. i now yield. >> there are certain things that are going on in this country right now that are very optimistic and are making real progress and changing the dynamics of our economy and the way we do things. one of them is in the energy

field. i will just mention quickly, the situation with serious energy, which developped a process using american recovery act funds to recycle window panes. they replaced all the windows in the empire state building, an 18-month project that cost $20 million and paid for itself in three years. they will save from now and into the future 40% of the energy bill. this is the kind of progress that could be made if we make a commitment to fund these types of programs. that was federal money that helped to complete the technology that helped in this advancement, which will change the way we consume energy in this country. we need to support these programs and i urge the adoption of these programs into the amendment. >> your time has expired.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. these are exactly the kind of optimistic forecasts we heard for other companies and got massive taxpayer subsidies and they all failed. it squandered bills of dollars of taxpayer money. we need to ask ourself if these technologies are so promising, why are adventure capitalist are not putting in their own money. no one in their right mind is willing to make their own money and so the result is to take money that would flow into promising technologies and put it into these. this misallocation of resources destroys jobs in other words to create jobs in the subsidized

ones it reduces our potential and destroying wealth instead of creating it. politicians like to show up at ribbon cuttings and press releases when these alternative businesses open. but they fall strangely silent when the businesses collapse and take billions of our taxpayer dollars with them. with that i will yield my time. >> my own roofing company was involved in. we did a lost clean solar energy. i have to tell you it is frustrating as a business guy to find ourselves in a potion where we have to compete with a government subsidized business at the expense of our own business. then to find out those government funded businesses go bankrupt at the very time competing unfairly with the unis upcy diesed business that is

likely to go bankrupt. it is this type of tail wagging the dog approach to energy that the department of energy's budget has gone up and up and up. they continue to invest a lot of money in very low efficiency and low productive ty energy sources at the expense of high productive energy sources. it is the exact process that makes this thing get turned upside down. we have the most cost-effective energy system and energy grid in the world. it seems the more the government gets involved in it the less likely that is to continue. i see you shaking your head over there. i don't know how many of you installed the solar power plant but i have. i know what goes on in this business. since 1970 they have been doing

this and they still don't have the efficiencies up where they think it ought to be. i urge people to vote no on this. i yield back. >> ladies and gentlemen, i have personal experience with this. i did it because i could afford it and i'm a geek and i thought it would be fun too to try to do it. you know what, it is a terrible investment. it will never be a return on capital. it makes me feel good. but i will never get the money back for it. why in the world if it will never work as an investment that we will impose that cost on the u.s. taxpayer? why would we oppose that cost on the payer and the utility bills? we shouldn't. that is not our job. it is not our job for the

corporate welfare and pick winners and losers. he went through some of the names. he talked about some of the companies. the total taxpayer losses from this little experiment has been $1.9 billion. why do we want to repeat that again? that is not fair to the taxpayer. that is not fair to the rate payer. the private sector will help develop the technologies that are ready for prime time from a technology standpoint. we'll produce more jobs that way than hiring 1,000 people and wasting billions of dollars and then laying them back off. that does not make sense to me.

>> the time has expired. as enjoyable as that was, the time is expired. mr. huffman has a minute to close. >> thank you, mr. chair. it is interesting to see hear my colleagues express concern about keeping government funding out of the industries. if they brought that to the gas and oil industries we might find some common ground in this budget. unfortunately, that is reserved for clean, renewable energy and that is the problem. we've heard about the companies and the varies projects that did not pan out and the statement has been made incorrectly that this project led more losses and anticipated that is false. the investment of the programs has outperformed. i would chalk this up as a success story in this particular area. colleague, you say that you want

to create jobs, that you want america to be energy independent and compete globally. cutting projects like this is a great way to do that. it is one where -- >> time. >> i want a yes vote on this amendment. >> those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the opinion of the chair the noes have it. do you want to record a vote. the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call]

>> any members who have yet to vote or want to change their vote? >> mr. chairman, the ayes are 17 and no is 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to.

are there other amendments? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the clerk will report the amendment and please distribute to amendment. >> the amendment relating to taxes. >> you are recognized for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let's reduce the deficit by ending tax breaks for special interests and millionaires. this amendment started in 2014 could raise $275 billion over the next 10 years. for example, we can end tax breaks like special depreciation for corporate jets. there is no reason why they can depreciate their corporate jet at a faster rate than airlines can depreciate their commercial jets. a nice perk, this reduction will cost the teaches almost $4 billion over the next few years.

this is just one among many we need to close. this amendment will end tax subsidies to big oil companies. the figure five, b.p., exxon, shell, easterns made $1 trillion in net profits over the last 10 years. conservative groups have urged for the repeal as well. with oil at $90 or more per barrel oil companies don't need government handouts to encourage them to drill more. the big five c.e.o.s have told us this much and speaker boehner has said the same thing. this quote is from the national journal. it was not an issue for large

companies who need subsidies to indice us to looking for and producing more oil. my point of view, with high oil prices such subsidies are unnecessary. i will also quote exxon's c.e.o. who was quoted on fox news in 2005. "let me be clear, i'm not asking for any insin tives from washington. i -- incentives from washington. i never have and i will never. i would like to quote john boehner from 2011. regarding multibillion-dollar tax subsidies. "there is certainly something we should be looking at. we're at a time where the federal government is short on revenues. they ought to pay their fair share." that is speaker john boehner.

in the interest of time, i'm going to foe go pointing out the other elements of this amendment to close tax loopholes so what i ask colleagues, is we go ahead and support this amendment and score this as savings toward lowering the deficit. thank you and i yield my time. >> ok. >> thank you, mr. chairman. 12 hours ago we started this exercise and we've seen one proposal after another that would raise taxes. it seems to me that is based on the assumption that when these people have money they put it in a rocket ship and send it off to neptune. so the best thing the government can do is grab a little bit of money before it leaves the planet. that is not what happens.

these people are farmers and ranchers, these are small businesss. even these large corporations, they take their money and they reinvest it. they buy equipment, they hire new people, and the additional income that will come into the united states treasury because of the added purchases, because of the new hires will far exceed whatever amount we could grab in extra taxes. our revenue is at an all-time high. washington does not have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. cy would like to yield to the gentleman from south carolina. >> i want to remind people this is a budget not a tax bill. i'm confident that in tax reform that the tax reform this bill calls for, many if not all tax provisions would be removed and the savings used to lower tax rates to make american

businesses more competitive and mutt for middle-class families back to work. we raised taxes two months ago. i've been a tax lawyer for 25 years and the frequency of the tax increases is absurd. americans and american businesses need certainty and stabe ability. the -- stability. the president says we need to pay a little bit more in a 15% in the tax rates, under the fiscal cliff deals. these little bit more is adding up. those provisions provide jobs to the middle-class families are taxed at individual rates. these job creators are bearg these costs and these have consequences and it will cause businesses to fail, businesses to move outside of our borders and more american jobs will be lost. i yield back my time.

>> i would like to yield to the gentleman from texas. >> i want to ask a question. what is the wrong with being a millionaire? when you do that you become a job creator. you become a taxpayer. it is called the dream. people buy things when they have success. they put more money in the system. trying to improve cash flow on the top 5% of taxpayers is wrong. it slows down the growth and it slows down the entrepreneural spirit. if everything worked lie you did, why are we at 7.8% unemployment. why 15% under employment. why do we have 15% -- we don't hear about apple? why do we talk about raising the minimum wage and lowering the maximum wage? i haven't figured that poupt

when you talk about average then you quickly become average. if you're a pilot you know what cavu means. that is what america should be about. let's lower taxes for all people. let's kurt regulation for all people. let's have america play offense instead of defense. i yield back. >> we yield back the rest of our time. >> the gentleman yields his time. the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute to close. >> thank you. i appreciate the question about what is wrong with millionaires? i appreciate job creators. i used to own a business and i was proud of the fact that many families fed their families because i was tough enough, crazy enough, or dumb enough to work 100 hours a week. all i'm talking about is an element of fairness.

these loopholes are not being taken advantage of by blue color families who work 60 hours a week. these are benefitting the largest corporations and the biggest millionaires on the planet. one of them has to do with preventing people from being able to take their money offshore. if you're going to do business in this great country and take advantage of the infrastructure you need to play fair like everybody else. thank you. >> in time. the question is greig to the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those say aye, those say no. a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call]

>> any other members wishing to vote? >> on that vote ayes are 17 and the noes are 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. are there other ands? the clerk will distribute the capes. >> an amendment offered in relating to long-term deficit reduction. >> the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you very much. well, we have an opportunity for bipartisan here. this modest sense of the house, hopefully falls in line with what is mentioned in this budget. my goal is to set the stage hopefully for a longer term discussion. we'll pass our budget here, the

senate will pass their budget there. hopefully, we'll have an opportunity to have some agreement, not only will we pass a budget out of each chamber but also a unified budget for the united states congress and for men and women of this country. to that end, i know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had a visit from the president today. i think he's serious about trying to figure this out. at the end of the day, we know and we talked about it earlier. we did deaf it is reduction earlier. i did not like all of it and you did want like all of it. we got a lot of savings, a lot of spending cuts, a little bit of revenue. we swallowed hard to do it. we had to work hard to do to

pass those measures. what is remaybing is to deal with the biggest cost drivers and the biggest issues we have in the terms of our tax system. i looked at the tax reform system that the chairman has here. it looks good. on the business side of things and the lower income people, where i differ slightly but my amendment doesn't say it can't be revenue neutral but i think we should put revenue on the table. my amendment, if you look at the back package says it could raise net revenue by limiting the same things that you have outlined here in our package. that does not mean we will get all what i like or what you like. it also calls out on that same just above that addressing long-term cost drivers putting

mandatory health care programs on a sustainable path. you do it one way here and i would suggest that we get to a bipartisan discussion and do it in a way that both of us swallow hard and make tough decisions. there is other ways to do it, health care reforms, i respectfully disagree with the chair a little bit. there are several health care programs out there. bowles simpson has theirs and there is another one that has quality transparency and cost sharing by the beneficiaries in a means tested way. i think we need to look at this carefully, the benchmarks are pretty much in line with where we're going. we can have the discussion on how far to go, how soon to balance. but i would like to have the opportunity to have that bipartisan framework other the

next few months. i hope this set sts stage. i yield back. >> gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start out when you refer to a balanced approach. when we refer to a balanced budget we're talking about spending not more than we take in. when you say balanced you're talking about a tax increase. that is a code word for tax increase. the federal government does not have a revenue problem it has a spending problem. it will return to his 40 year historic average by next year. it further projects revenue will be a full percentage point higher and it will stay at that level there after even with no further changes. in other words, the federal government is on track to take in more money from american taxpayers than it has in the

past yet we're still on track to run massive deficits. clearly spending is a problem. it is obvious that trying to chase washington's higher spending with higher taxes will not solve our problems. it will make them worse. it will stifle the economy because high taxes destroys the incentive to work. it will make them worse because high taxes make our businesses less competitive and cause more american jobs to go overseas. it is a shame to lose american jobs overseas because of the lower wages. it is tragic to lose american jobs because our government costs more. the american people don't need washington to take even more of their hard-earned money through tax increases. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i yield 10 minutes to mr. duffy.

>> i don't know if i can take 10 minutes. in your amendment, you offer a reduction of deficits. i think this is a great moment of honesty and truth coming from the democrat side. you're telling us you never, ever, ever, want to balance a budget. you're telling us that you want to stick the next generation with almost $17 trillion that we borrowed today and the trillions we're going borrow from this point forward. you never intend on paying it back. i think this shines a light on the fact that the little girls that are in my daughter's preschool class, the little ones that are learning their alphabet and their numbers. they are the once you're going to ask to pay all of this back. those little girls that are voiceless right now. they don't have a voice here. those little girls, they are

vulnerable. they are the viments of this policy. -- victims of this policy. it is not good fluff to say we want to reduce the deficit. let's pay it off. let's work together to get to a point where we can balance it. but we're for balanced budgets but you're talking about a balanced approach that never balances. you go up 10 years and you will borrow money. 50 years, all you democrats say let's borrow money from places like china. 200 years from now let's still borrow. this is not sustainable. we deserve better. our kids deserve better. let's find a balanced approach that truly balances the budget. >> i think my friend for trying to find bipartisanship. i've been here two years but i showed up revenues were just over 15% of g.d.p.

with this budget that the chairman has proposed revenues go above 19% of g.d.p. that is a 20% increase in the scope of revenues in this country. talking about finding both sides of the ledger, we've been working on the revenue side. i happen to agree with my friend from wisconsin. before we can have an honest discussion here the american people have to understand where we're headed. i don't think when people hear balanced approach they hear debt rising as far as the eye can see. i don't think that there is a family in america that thinks it is ok to freeze their debts and never, ever pay them back. if i'm wrong about that, i need to be educated. i think a lot of my colleagues need to be educated because we can't get to this starting point of coming together when some of us want to pay back all of our debt we want to begin paying it back within the next 10 years.

others of us, believe it is a fiscally sustainable policy to continue to let debt rise again, not just for a decade, not two decades but as far as the eye can see. i yield back. >> time has expired. >> i appreciate the discussion. i think you guys are, unfortunately, not reading the amendment in the way as it is intended or written. the debt would go down over a peed of time there ising in here that says deficit reduction doesn't get to a balanced budget. i would disagree with you if you're going to try to do it in 10 years you're going to stall out the recovery and throw us back into recession. i think that the idea that the revenue goes up to almost 19% is probably ok. i recognize you're willingness to do that. i can tell you that through tax reform that reduces rates for

corporation and lower middle-income americans, it is not popular. i appreciate your input but i think this is the way to get bipartisan agreement. i yield back. >> the question is agreeing to the amendment from the gentleman from oregon. say aye in favor. those opposed say no. the noes have it. the clerk will call roll.

[roll call]

>> any other members wish to change their vote? >> on that vote the ayes are 17

and the nos are 22. the amendment is not agreed to. now we're heading into the tier three. we're doing five minutes expect for number 23, i believe. do you have an amendment? >> yes. can i ask a question? can we reserve 30 seconds to close? >> so the clerk will designate the amendment and please distribute copies. >> an amendment offered in relation to social security. >> colleagues, this is a simple amendment to express the sense of the house that we do not support the privatization of social security. as members know, social security has established more than 77 years ago. it is more than just a prom but it is a promise that -- program but it is a promise.

privatization of social security would expose it to the stock market and put the retirement of our seniors in the hands of wall street, whose gambled helped to bring the economic system to its knees years ago. we cannot trust our millions of seniors into the same hands. this amendment expresses the sense of the house 37 i urge my colleagues -- house. i urge my colleagues to accept this amendment and i yield my time. >> we have tried to frame a law that will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against a loss of a job and

poverty of old age, f.d.r., 1935. social security has nothing to do with the deficit, ronald reagan. i agree with both of these two presidents. the people of america deserve retirement security that is stable and certain. we must, therefore, reject any effort to privatize social supreme court and police the future of our -- social security and place the future of our seniors in the hands of wall street. >> will the your time has expired and you're recognized for two minutes. >> i appreciate the gentleman from rhode island. our budget does not touch social security. it leaves it the way it is. i appreciate you don't want private accounts in there. they are not in there.

you say, well, we're nozz raising retirementage either. we're not cutting it in half. there's a hundred thousand things we're not doing because we're not changing it. it is in a deficit, it is going to get worse. we will have to deal with it. that's the conversation we're going to have v to have on what is the best way to fix and reform social security in other words to ensure its long-term health and stability. that conversation is not part of this budge. we're leaving social security alone. i also want to mention in case this is my last chance to mention something. last year in this markup, my friends on the other side of the aisle used -- what do you call it here? eliminating tax subsidies for corporate jets all that kind of stuff. you used that same tax increases

nine times. you used them to pay them for nine different spending bills in the last markup we had. you're only at eight so far. if we can get one or two more in you can use the same dollars of tax to use spend $10 of spending this year because you only used nine. >> there is not a provision in this budget for a trigger that sets off the process to talk about social security. it is not in there but it sets out a process. our voice should be heard. i want to yield the balance of my closing to mr. mcdermott. >> in n this day that we selected a new pope i think a pledge of social security would

be in order. we've been worshiping in the church of free enterprise system in the alter of the market all day long. all i hear is the market does everything. we know what the market does and we've seen -- i came in the savings and loan crisis and i lived through the banking crisis. you ought to be willing to pledge not to put social security money in the hands of any banker whatsoever. >> i don't want to shut you down because i enjoyed that. the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the noes have it. does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call]

>> any other members who have not been recorded that wish to be recorded? the clerk will report. >> the ayes are 17 and the nos are 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. i believe mr. cardenas has one. >> mr. chairman, in an amendment relating to taxes. >> gentleman, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let's commit to preserve the mortgage interest for the middle-class. you will see how many middle-class americans take advantage of this deduction. it is the largest deduction utilized by blue color working families in the country. this is the investigate wea to the american dream of -- gateway

to the american dream. i think it is important for us to understand that the housing industry is struggling with a 21% unemployment rate among construction workers. it is an economic engine that is in every forecast when we talk about the progress or not of the economy of this country. take this deduction away from the american working families and we postpone our economic recover precipitate colleagues, i appeal to my republican colleagues to support this amendment. isn't your motto, i've never seen a tax reduction i don't like? let's all support this. thank you. i yield my time. >> you're recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. let's be clear. the budget is slipet on the issue of mortgage rate deduction. the ways and means committee will be marking up bill over the next couple of months.

this is exactly how reform won't happen if we begin picking winners or lossers in this committee. the post important aspects on a budget that we present today are one of the most important things is the progrowth tax reform that we'll be promoting through the ways and means committee. there are more than 6 hush credits our deductions in our tax code totaling over $1 trillion. the ways and means committee will be evaluating this. i would inform our colleagues here and anybody else listening, that the ways and means committee has put together working groups on all of the items that relate to tax reform and this is one of them. if you have information you would like to share with the committee we would be happy to take that information and refer it to the committee so i would urge rejection to the amendment and yield back. >> you're recognized for a

minute to close. >> i appreciate that statement but i don't understand the perspective. earlier colleagues you were defending people who tend to be millionaires who have tax deductions within the current code and you asked the question what do some of us have against millionaires? i will say again, i don't have against millionaires. the question is what do you have against the middle-class? the people who take advantage of this the most is the middle-class. every single person who has ever run for office in this country talks about the american dream, included in that american dream is homeownership. this is the biggest deduction that any middle-class family ever takes when they do their taxes every single year. i'm hoping you can support it. yes, ways and means eastern committees might handle this but there is nothing wrong with us making a statement and moving forward. >> the time has expired.

all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. is the gentleman asking for a vote? >> yes. >> the clerk will call the roll. [interrogatory call] [roll call]

>> anybody else wish to vote or change their vote? >> on that vote the ayes are 17 and the noes are 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. i believe the gentleman from california has an amendment. >> thank you. >> this one we're going to do seven minutes, i guess. ok, so ok. >> ok. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the clerk will designate the amendment and distribute copies. >> an amendment offered is

related to poverty. >> this amendment basically would lay out the sense to this committee that we want to eliminate poverty by cutting it in half in 10 years. we passed a bipartisan resolution in 2008 that said we have as a goal to cut poverty in half over the next 10 years. this takes that goal and this congress to the next step to develop a plan. as i go through this, one of the issues and i want to thank you and your staff for working with us on this. i think it is important to recognize as we look at this resolution and the budget, we see the federal safety net programs that have allowed for

pathways out of poverty and many of these programs are being december decimated right now. they are the earned income tax credit, the child tax cret it, the supplement nutritional program, the school lunch programs, adequate housing and health care also provide path ways out of poverty. i think we fundamental agree, i don't think anyone here would disagree that we want to eliminate poverty. we have to figure out our strategy on how to do that. our strategy should not be -- should not allow for deep and sustained and brood cuts that would help -- broad cuts that would help us. as this moves to the floor we can continue our discussions. but at this point, i would like

to yield a minute and half to the ranking member, mr. van hollen. >> thank you. i want to thank you leading the discussion within the democratic caucus in ways we can reduce poverty in this country. i hope it does become a bipartisan conversation. i think we all have an obligation to look for ways that we can help people with upper mobility and help people reach their full potential. that is what this is about to accomplish that. it points out some of the programs that have been effective to keep people from falling through safety net. unfortunately, programs that are shredded in many ways within this budget in the name to save those programs. the tax credit is the perfect example. president reagan talked about

how that was the most effective programs ever. making sure that people who were working full time earned a living wage. i hope, mr. chairman, we can reach a bipartisan agreement on this. >> you're recognized for three minutes. >> i find they agree with you and what you shared this evening. specially the noble and worthy and honorable pursuit of reducing poverty in america. this is a shared value. the disparity that exists in america today at almost every level, economic income, household wealth, that troubles me and it troubles my conference. i think it troubles all of us here. where i come to a stop, i read this in the short time we to do look at it here. what you said earlier, this

basic premises with our budget is in working against reducing poverty. i respectfully don't agree with that. we need to unleash the greatest engine that america has ever known. we need to provide certainty in our budget. this budget does that. it is the certainty that we need for the american entrepreneur to grow and develop our economy. i respectfully disagree with you tonight. i will be urging my colleagues to vote no and i will yield the remainder of my time to chairman ryan. >> we tried to get agreement on the language. we didn't quite get there. we share the goal, clearly. sometimes we differ on the means to the end. our goal with this budget and with our policies is to rethink our war on poverty because it is not working. we have 46 million people in

poverty. what we want to do is look at the ideas that worked, not keep funding programs that aren't working because we want to break the cycle of poverty. we want to go to root causes of poverty. show perhaps we'll never agree to the means in reducing poverty but one of the concerns i have with the language is it implies that the primary role is governmental. i believe that civil society and a strong private sector economy is foundational and the -- to fighting poverty. at what i would like to do is work with the gentle lady to get on the right kind of language that captures sentiment from both sides of the aisle. this is something we have to put our heads together as republicans and democrats because it is not working.

continuing failed policies will simply mean we will get the same failed results. we can do better than this. we have seen examples of the reforms until the past that have actually worked to reduce poverty. let's look at those examples, play on those results and apply those lessons of the programs we have today. in the meantime, i do not think this is written in the way we can support it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the programs listed in this amendment are proven to rate they work, they keep people out of poverty. however we approach this, we have to remember that our federal government, our national government should be a government that provides a safety net for the common good. oftentimes people need a bridge over troubled waters. these programs have provided for

that bridge. income inequality continues to grow. we know the primary path with out of poverty is a job. we have to protect the safety net which has been decimated in this budget and figure out how we can raise revenue increased investments in job creation. 48 million people living in poverty want a job, they want to work. out of this hearing, i hope we can debate about that. all of us see this as a moral issue. we have to address it. thank you again. >> the question on agreeing to the amendment offered from the gentle lady by california -- generally the from california. those in favor say aye. those oppose say no. roll call vote requested.

[roll call]

>> on that vote, the ayes were 17, the nos 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. ms. moore has an amendment. the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute copies. >> an amendment offered related to should be jay to child- support -- related to child support. >> in teh absence of an entitlement for welfare, there are limits of dollars of chao support that is old. often local and county agencies

collect child-support and hold these moneys for administrative fees. the best way to support her children in this environment is to allow this money to be passed through 100% to the parent. it increases connection with the absent parent and provides much- needed support for children. i would yield now to my good friend from wisconsin, the chairman. >> the only regret i have is this has not been fixed by now. [laughter] gwen and i are familiar because we have this in wisconsin. if a father is making his child- support payments, they should go to the kick. he should not lop off a big

percentage of the two bureaucracy. if he does so, he doesn't give it to the kids. so there's no reason why we should have the government skim child support payments off of it all other's support payments to children. this is something we have always agreed on. we should get this done for once. >> reclaim my time. do you know anybody on the ways and means committee? [laughter] >> we do. we support the amendment. we need to get on this. i yelled back. -- i yield back. those in favor say aye. those oppose say no. the ayes have it, the amendment

is agreed to. amendment. >> the clerk will designate and the staff will distribute copies. >> an amendment offered relating to native american health. >> the gentle lady is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. this amendment will prevent a debilitating cuts to indian health services. ihf provides closely competent personal, physical, mental and spiritual health for native americans who live on or close to reservations. the chairman's budget is misguided. the proposed cuts to ihs jeopardize the health care of more than 2 million americans. cuts will exacerbate the last --

the lack health care for the americans resulting in premature death and lower quality of life. the american indian population suffer disproportionately from a number of health problems, including diabetes, suicide, alcohol abuse, a cancer and maternal health. the americans have a life expectancy 4.1 years less than the u.s. population among all races. the ryan budget will be detrimental to health care and devastating to local economy of local native american communities which already suffer from economic problems. members of the committee, mr. chairman, cuts to indian health services is a violation of the commitment we made to sovereign nations.

on top of the cuts will experience for medicare and medicaid. i ask for your support and i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> will the lady yield? >> the gentleman from oklahoma as recognize. >> i want to thank the gentle lady in those offered the amendment. they are focusing on a real problem. i will not repeat her statistics but indians have a shorter life span than any other group within the country. they see health care providers less frequently than any group of americans. funding is a big part of the problem. let me rattle off some numbers from ihs. the average american gets six to $900 worth of health care a year.

the average person on medicare, about 11,000. the average federal prisoner, about $51. the average native american, $2,700. the problem is neither this house nor the ryan budget. in fiscal year 2011, we increased the spending above what the president had requested and my friends on the other side of the aisle adapted when they were in the majority. it did the fiscal year 2013 operating under the rhine budget, we exceeded what the president requested -- operating under the fiscal year 2013, we exceeded what the president requested. this was a bipartisan achievement. i want to thank jim moran and

betty mccollum -- and betty mcullough. every yaer the senate -- year, the senate fights tooth and nail to cut indian health care. who is stopping is the senate controlled by the democratic party, particularly the appropriations committee that puts less emphasis on this than any other body in government. with all due respect, i would be happy to work on increasing funding. i have done it. >> time for the gentleman has expired. the gentle lady gets a minute to close. >> thank you. thank you for reiterating the problem so eloquently and

pointing out the disparity not only in funding but in the health status of native americans across this country. the authorization for indian health services, it also relies on medicare and medicaid. those programs are impacted in a negative fashion by the rhineland and does nothing to get us to funding ihs -- are impacted in a negative fashion and do nothing to get us to funding ihs. thank you very much. i yield back. >> the time has expired. those in favor say aye. those oppose say no. the nos have it.

roll call vote is requested. [roll call]

>> the clerk will report. >> the ayes are 16, the nos are 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. we have one more. mr. schrader. >> thank you, mr. chair. this is a straightforward. >> an amendment offered relating to rural schools. >> this amendment recognizes that rural america has been not only in a recession but a depression.

the rest of the country has enjoyed some good growth from time to time. a lot of our forest land is no longer harvest double -- harvestable for a variety of reasons. there are not going to be part of any dot com, they will not enjoy some of high-tech stuff we're talking about. they need real help. this is a deficit neutral reserve fund. we have had this fund available for previous two budgets. we are trying to codify it in this budget. with that i will yield. >> thank you for offering this amendment. this is something i concur with. we have included it in the past budgets.

there is a town that is about to lose their school district. about 90% of the county is in a national forest. this will allow harvesting to help make sure that school states open. use the school, you lose the community. we do not need to lose any moral communities -- you lose the school, you lose the community. we do not need to lose any more rural committees. on agreeing to the amendment, those in favor say aye. those oppose say no. the ayes have it. we end on an aye vote. that is a good way to end. [laughter] we have a few more.

all right. i recognize that gentleman from georgia very >> i move on the budget aggregates and other appropriate manner. >> those in favor say aye. those oppose say no. the ayes have it. pursuant to the committee ruled 9, i now call [indiscernible] i recognized the member from the order for a motion to order the resolution. >> i move the committee ordered the concurrent resolution with the recommendation the resolution do pass. >> the question is on ordering the current resolution to be favorably reported to the house. those in favor say aye. those oppose say no. the ayes have it.

the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

>> anybody wished to change their votes? the clerk will report, . the ayes being 22, nos being 17, the ayes have it. i note that a corum is present. >> i ask to file the minority views. >> so ordered. i recognize the member from georgia.

>> without objection, so ordered. >> i ask consent staff be authorized to make technical corrections prior to the filing of the resolution. >> without objection, so ordered. there we have it. this concludes that business of the house budget committee today and we were done by midnight. the committee is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> this morning at 10:00 eastern, 13 hours ago, the committee voted 22 to 17 along party lines. they are expected to debate the legislation next week. only two amendments were approved. the senate budget committee will continue work on the budget proposal at 9:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow on c-span3. the bill is slated to reach the senate floor next week. you can see highlights of the

house budget committee markup here on c-span or any time at our website c-span.org. on the next washington journal, congressman richard hudson of north carolina. on new tsa rules allowing passengers to carry small knives. then senator burny sanders of vermont -- bernie sanders of vermont. and history of u.s. pakistan relations. washington journal, every morning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> the fact is we are all getting older together and we are not the same -- to the two rates have dropped dramatically. we are having an inverted pyramid. slow growing developing countries have had for decades

lower fertility rates. japan and europe and russia. now china is feeling the impact of its one child policy. we are better off than the rest of the developed world but our fertility rate has dropped to 1.8, the lowest in recorded history. we have tried and true way to deal with this demographic time bomb. demography does not have to be destiny if you change course. the path we can take is to allow for a strategic reform of our immigration laws so we can bring young aspirational people that will rebuild the demographic pyramid to make our entitlement system secure and jump-start our economy in a way that will create an uplifting of our hopes and dreams but also directly impact economic growth. >> u.s. economic growth in immigration policy.

florida former governor jeb bush. part of "book tv" this began to regret president obama was on capitol hill wednesday, meeting with house republicans. he met with senate democrats earlier this week and will meet with senate republicans and house democrats tomorrow. following the meeting with the president, house republicans spoke to the press. john boehner said the tone was good but there was no sign of an agreement on how to balance the federal budget. this is about 10 minutes. >> while we wait for the name of the pope, we had the -- it was

important today to have president obama come to the house republican conference. it was a pleasure to welcome him and to have a dialogue with him about the important issues facing this country. the american people want us, they want congress and the president to work together to address these challenges. that is what i hope we started today. we had a discussion about important issues like balancing the budget. we will be putting forward our budget into balance within 10 years shortly. we talked about energy, the importance of energy independence for this country. as well as a plan to which a plan for social security and medicare and making sure we keep our promises to our seniors and the next generation. this is not just about numbers and charts and graphs. this discussion is about american people. it is about moms, dads, kids,

college studebts, seniors, and making america better for them. the senate is working on their budget. the house is working on our budget. the president and house republicans are meeting. this is of progress in the right direction. this is how it is supposed to work. it is my hope we can continue to come together to do what is good and right for america. >> good afternoon, everyone. i want to thank the president for coming to the capitol today to visit with our members. i thought we had a frank and candid exchange of ideas. i think it was productive. however, there are some real differences between our two parties -- issues like jobs, balancing the budget.

and what do we do to get our economy moving again. republicans want to balance the budget, the president does not carry the protestants want to resolve our long-term debt problem. the president does not. we want to unlock our energy resources to put more americans back to work. the president does not. but having said that, today was a good start. i hope these kinds of discussions can continue, even though we have real differences, our job is to find common ground to do the work the american people sent us here today. -- here to do. >> i too am glad we have the opportunity to meet the president and he spoke to our conference. my take away was there are some real differences between us and the president in terms of how we go about -- how we go forward in this country. i also know there is a lot in

common. we moved twice to try to replace existing sequester and many provisions in the bill would put forward came from the president's own proposal. and those are some of the things we have in common. it is like low hanging fruit. we should be able to pick those up and do them together. if the president wants to let our unwillingness to raise taxes get in the way, then we will not be able to set the differences aside and focus on what we agree on. my take away was that. i hope the president is sincere in saying that he was to work with us. like any normal existence with people, you set aside differences and you find where you can work together. that is what we should be doing. if we can have days like that where we are serious and trying to say we want to work together and do something, i think it can help people.

in the end, this is all about the people of the country. those out of work, it is about trying to get our fiscal situation straightened and to affect government policies of people can have their life work again. >> it was the the president came. it is something that should happen many times before. today also stressed the real differences about us. we talked about balancing the budget. the president does see different challenges than the view we have the budget and the way he views it. i hope today was a star. time will only tell if this continues to move forward -- i hope today was a start. time only tell of this continues to move forward. there needs to be cut and their need to be revenues. he received a great amount of revenue. now we are looking for reforms

to reform our tax code and the budget so we can balance it in 10 years. we will move forward, when can we see his budget? we are marking hours of now. we can vote on next week. laying out a budget will be the first sign of what today was a movement in a different direction for the administration. -- sign of and whether today was a movement in a different direction for the administration. >> reminded me of a story from the battleground over 200 years ago when a man in civilian clothes and rode up and saw some war weary soldiers and building a tranche -- building a trench. the section leader yeled orders

at them and ask the leader why aren't you in the trench with your men? he said because i am the leader. the man in civilian clothes got in the trench and dug until it was complete and has the was thanking the soldiers, the elader recognized this civilian -- the leader recognized this civilian as general george washington. that is real leadership. today we have a battle here in washington to help the american people and to save our country. people are hurting. they are out of work, they're suffering. they cannot pay their bills. we are anxious to see whether today's events will produce a leader that will get off the high horse, stop the campaign into a nest in the trenches and stay until the digging is done.

>> the welcome the president here. he is welcome anytime. -- we welcome the president here. he is welcome any time. there are a lot of the sick -- issues we disagree on. it can also identify areas we do agree on. our main focus was to identify the areas we agree on and do those. the president seemed today -- seemed to say you also have to do some of mine. our focus is stil the same. why can't we do the areas we agree on. let's move forward on the things we do agree on. we also try to focus in on a balanced budget and asked the president to agree with us that there is a great game to the american people and our economy if we can balance the budget. we may disagree on how we get there but to me at least set a

goal that a balanced budget is important -- there but can we at least se t a goal that announced but it is important. we should be able to agree that as a good thing to do for the nation. >> good afternoon. i'm grateful to have been in a conversation with the president and to have a chance to talk about a balanced budget. in indiana, hoosiers sit around the table and they have to make their budget to work. they have to make tough decisions. when i go to the grocery store in my district, i can tell you that for the millions of women in this country that are the hats of their households, that is why we need to have a balanced budget. that is why it is important we

have a conversation with the president to say we need a balanced budget that includes making interest payments, during the things we do as americans. when they make a mortgage payment, i pay the interest. is somebody is making credit card payment, they make the interest as well. i urge the president today to continue to join us in our pursuit to provide a balanced budget for the sake of people, not for the sake of rhetoric or for the women and men working so hard and are so dependent on a bipartisan effort here. >> a couple of questions. >> for americans hungry for a sign of the two sides can work together, was the most encouraging thing that came out of the meeting? what the tone of the meeting was very respectful. >> the news just came out of the

first south american pope. what are your thoughts? >> congratulations. [laughter] >> no thoughts about a south american pope? that's historical. >> i am happy they were able to come to a choice as quickly as they did. reaching out beyond the traditional continent of our church is another big step and to the right direction for the church. >> you are going to pass a budget next week. the president earlier today lamented that in looking at the ryan budget, he thought there may not be common ground for you to reach a grand bargain on the next $2 trillion. i wonder how you see that in

the context of the last election. how should people view this discussion between you all on the president, when even he thinks there may not be common ground? >> biya the very serious spending problem in washington. -- we have a very serious spending problem in washington. we still have a nearly $1 trillion budget deficit. we have a spending problem. we have to attack the spending. the president understands we have some long-term spending that we need to deal with. but he will hold hostage the fact that he wants to raise taxes on the american people again. that will not get very far. we al know what -- all know what needs to be done. >> can you be more specific

about was productive about the meeting? the president has not said anything he has not reset before? >> i have heard it before. i thought was good for all of our members to hear it said they have an understanding of where he is coming from. we have big problems in our country. they need to be addressed. we are willing to get them addressed. i hope the president continues as our reach. thanks. >> on the next washington journal, congressman richard hudson, the chairman of the homeland security transportation subcommittee, on the new tsa rules allow passengers to carry small knives. then a talk about the 2014 budget proposal released tuesday by patty murray. we hear from the former

pakistani ambassador to the u.s. on the history of u.s.-pakistan relations. "washington journal" takes your calls, emails and tweets every morning starting at 7:00 eastern on c-span to regret the senate budget committee will continue tomorrow morning -- on c-span. >> the senate budget committee will continue tomorrow morning on c-span3. >> if republicans are paying as much attention as i am and you are, there is a political community -- probably about 10 million people. the people that watched speech th c-span, meet the f pressmeetx news, cnn, they really care

about politics allot. -- the people that watch c-span, meet the press, fox news, c nn. they really care about politics a lot. background noise comes to the mainstream kimedia. most of doesn't reach those people. fox gets great ratings. bill reilly -- bill o'reilly's show gets 2 million people in night. that is not the elected. >> more with a political commentator fred barnes sunday

night at 8:00 on "q &a." the house budget committee marked up the house republican's 2014 but the plant. chairman paul ryan -- reducing spending by $5.70 chilean. up next, opening statements from german ryan and ranking member van hollen. it is an hour and 45 minutes. >> i want to start by thanking the members of this committee. writing a budget is a tough job. you have to make choices. but everybody pitched in this year and i am grateful for the help from members of our committee. we sat around assembling a balanced budget. i am also grateful to ranking member van hollen.

this committee has a long tradition of bipartisan cooperation which he and his staff have continued. we have various spirited debate on the issues we do not agree on. i know we will have a spirited debates in the hours ahead but we will hold these debates in this spirit of goodwill and we should. we owe it to the country. after years of trillion dollar deficit, we owe the american people irresponsible, balanced budget. for the third year in a row, we will deliver it. how do we do it? we stop spending money we do not have. historically we have paid less than one-fifth of our income attacked the federal government each year. the government has spent much more. so we matte spending with income. -- we match spending with income.

as a result, we spent $4.60 trillion less over the next 10 years. over -- every families to live within a budget, the federal government should do the same. it is a reasonable goal. look at where we are and where we're going. today our national debt is bigger than our entire economy. unless we change course, we will add another $9 trillion over the next 10 years to our national debt. that will weigh down our country and our economy like an anger. at some point, lenders will lose [indiscernible] and demand higher interest rates. as interest rates rise, debt payments will overwhelm all other items in the budget. the debt will overwhelm the economy. our finances will collapse three the safety net will unravel her the most vulnerable, as his supper is the most -- that is

who suffers the most. i look back at 2008 like it was yesterday and i remember seeing all that was happening in front of our eyes. i remember panic to meetings with the treasury secretary. looking back we can see what happened at the moment, it was a crisis that hit us by surprise. look what happened in the meantime. the trillions of dollars lost in the debt added. the millions left of the work. the pair will that have gone empty. look at the lives that have been displaced. -- the pay rolls that have gone empty. look at the lives that have been displaced. we have a moral obligation to prevent it from happening in the first place. by 2023, we will collect twice as much revenue as we did last year. the cbo says the deficit will be nearly $1 trillion in that year. clearly spending is the problem. it is more than an economic

problem. by living beyond our means, we are stealing from our children. it is selfish, it is wrong. and it has to stop. we not only balance the budget in 10 years, but putting the right reforms in place, we pay down our debt. the less we owe to foreign creditors, the more of our own future we will control the truth is our debt is a sign of overreach. it is a sign government is doing too much. when government does to much, it does not do anything well. so it is only common sense to balance the budget because the returns of government to its proper limits in focus. we believe there is an important poll for -- role for the federal parliament. we want the government to do its functions well. when the government does to much, it's spread itself too thin. it does not do anything very well. by balancing a budget in 10

years, we will promote a healthier economy and help create jobs. cbo says it would increase gross national product by 1.7% of its by 2023 -- by 1.7 percentage points by 2013. our but it will provide economic security for families. it will guarantee return it for seniors and expand opportunity for the young. escalating to the loans, a bad economy, no chance of getting a good paint job to pay those loans back. they deserve better than this. this budget will restore fair play to the marketplace. we want to get out of the business of cronyism, which both parties have fallen victim to. we want fair play for everybody in the marketplace. it will keep our country say. as part of our plan, the cut

wasteful spending. i know some of my friends on the other side will object but let's put this into perspective. on the current path, we will spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. under our proposal, we would spend $41 trillion over the next 10 years. on our current path, we'll be increasing spending by an average of 5% each year. under our proposal, we will increase spending by an average of 3.4% each year. because the economy will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 2023 and the debt held by the public will drop to over half the size of our economy. a far more amenable level. the most important question is why the dallas the budget. but it is nothing more than a means to the an end. -- a budget is nothing more than

a means to an end. i did not look at this issue like an accountant. i look at it as a citizen, has been, a dad. it is not fair to take more from hard-working families. and what medicare to be there for my kids just like it there for my mom today. but medicare is going broke. if we want to keep our promises, we have to strengthen this program. i understand that everybody shares our view. i respect that difference of opinion. all i ask is that you join in the effort. if you do not like our plan, all for your own. we may not agree on how to balance the budget but we should agree on the need to balance the budget. a balanced budget is a reasonable goal. a balanced plan that never balances is not balanced. saw a court to our discussion

today -- so i look forward to our discussion today. it does not do justice to our economy. it is not fair to the people depending on this critical safety net programs. with that, i want to yield to the ranking member, mr. van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all the members of the committee as we gather here at what is an important moment for our country. thanks to the ingenuity and resilience of the american people and the emergency actions taken by the present -- sick by the president, we are continuing to recover from the worst recession since the great depression -- thanks to the ingenuity and resilience of the american people and the emergency actions taken by the president, we are continuing to

recover from the worst recession since the great depression. we must reduce our deficits and stabilize the debt but we should do that in a way that immediately reduces the jobs deficit. rather than a budget that immediately makes that job deficit worse. unfortunately, this republican budget fails that the very simple task. the nonpartisan, independent congressional budget office has shown the approach taken in this budget will result in 750,000 fewer american jobs by the end of this calendar year. it will reduce economic growth this calendar year by one third. we cannot afford to do that. in analysis yesterday by the economic policy institute, by 2014, it will cost as 2 million jobs. the issue is not whether we should steadily reduce our long-

term deficits but how we do it. we believe our budgets should be good friends for economic growth. we believe we should share responsibility for reducing the deficit, rather than providing tax breaks for the very wealthy while balancing the budget on the backs of the middle-class, on the backs of our kids education and by violating our commitments to seniors. this republican budget once again takes and it theological, uncompromising approach to addressing that budget challenge. last year we were told the president to let some give -- would give the american people opportunity to choose between two fundamentally different approaches to this challenge. one lopsided, one balance. they voted and they chose to reject the lopsided approach reflected in this budget. the american people rejected the idea that we will give

additional tax cuts to the wealthiest americans at the expense of middle class taxpayers a commitment to our seniors and violet vestments in our kids education, in scientific research and infrastructure, that car buyers are economy. invest with him helped make the united states and will power economic health -- investments that have helped make the united states and economic powerhouse. the budget calls for dropping the tax rate from 39% to 25% tariff cutting the rate for millionaires by more than one- third of holding all other avenues -- all of the revenues.

they showed it would raise the income tax burden on individuals making $200,000 a year. this budget proposal which provides a bigger tax cuts to millionairess will raise the tax burden on middle income families by an average of $2,000. at the same time, it does not close one single special interest tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one dime from ending special breaks for big oil companies or hedge fund managers. law providing this windfall to the wealthy, the proposal -- while providing this windfall to the wealth in the proposal [indiscernible] it more than double to rbd sequester cuts in non-defense discretionary. those are the funds that

provide for import and investment that help our economy grow. shortchanging that will result in national decline. this plan also violates our commitments to our seniors. it reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole, beginning to pile large additional bills onto seniors with high prescription drug costs to read it takes a wrecking ball to medicaid. two thirds of those funds go to seniors and individuals with disabilities. for everyone under 55 who has been paying all their life into medicare insurance, they will not receive about -- a voucher that declines in the value relative to rising health care costs. leaving them to eat the difference.

let's look at how this budget gets its political target of balance in 10 years. it uses all the revenues generated by the new hire tax rates on individuals with incomes individuals $400,000 a year. it is ironic that after hearing for so many years that new revenue could not make a measurable difference in reducing our deficit, that revenue is essential to bring in this political target to ballots in 10 years. this budget would not balance without obamacare. it is wrong to say this but it bounces in 10 years and repeals obamacare. does but it does eliminate the imported benefits and patient protections -- this budget does eliminate the important benefits and pay some protections in

obamacare. it will eliminate the benefits or tax credits to afford health care in the exchanges. it will eliminate tax credits for small businesses. but it keeps the rest. it keeps all the parts the reduce the deficit -- the parts that reduce the deficit. we were told last fall than those savings would result of the dow hospitals shutting down, nursing homes shutting down in a parade of other horrible consequences. those scare tactics were not true then and they're not true today. that is what all those says -- all those savings are included in this budget for us today.

remember all the tax revenues in obamacare? those higher income individuals and in industries that will benefit from obamacare expanding coverage -- all those taxes and revenues are includedare includn budget. in fact, a dirty little secret is this budget would not balance if not for the medicare savings and revenues, in obamacare. look at this chart here. in the 10th year, when it claims to hit balance, $400 billion is from obamacare. another $100 billion from that is from the tax revenue agreement in january. half of one trellised -- $1 trillion is from obamacare. i want to finally point out one

serious consequence of high -- of trying to have it both ways with obamacare in this country thereby eliminating the obamacare benefits while obtaining the savings and revenue, you will severely undermine the health care system. many hospitals and other providers will go belly up under that. that formula, taking what you want and discarding what you do not, is a recipe for chaos. the election is over. the american people reject the uncompromising approach in this budget. next week, democrats in the house will present an alternative budget that meets the priorities in a balanced way.

i hope as we move through the budget process over the next months, we will make the hard twits is necessary to make a balanced agreement that is good for the country, one that does accelerate economic growth now and in the future. >> thank you. before i yield, i want to make a couple points for the record. you have to use the base line you get from the cbo. does the baseline raise the revenues because of current law? yes. what we say is get rid of the ugly tax code with all the obamacare tax increases and such. with the talks tax rate going up on small businesses, you replace all of that with the obamacare cat -- taxes with a better tax system. and get rid of loopholes to a lower rate. that is what tax reform is.

with respect to the spending issues, the medicare provision, here is what obamacare does. it takes $716 billion from medicare to spend on obamacare. we and the rate of the program so all of those dollars go to extending the dollars of obamacare. we have witnessed testimony after testimony, whether it was cbo or cms, tell us you cannot spend the same dollar price. we say do not take that money from medicare and put it in obamacare. goes towards medicare. one more point. we have learned through the past that price controls are not working. we put reserve funds in our budgets to address these inadequacies. last year, a reserve fund. you come up with money to save in other places and present -- prevent from getting cut. they did that and they did not

get cut. we sent up the same process for other medicare providers from that that we believe those price controls will damage. this has not been held out yet. all of these changes have not occurred yet. we want to see what happens. some of the providers asked for this to happen as they supported it. we are setting up the same kind of process to make sure all the medicare dollars can be addressed if we have network problems, just like we addressed -- the point is this. we do not like the president's healthcare law. we think it will do great damage to health care. we proposed to repeal it but replace it. our medicare plan is a lot better than 15 people telling seniors what they can and cannot have. this will be a long debate today. i look forward to it. i would like to yield two minutes on the importance of

actually doing a budget. >> thank you. a budget is about priorities. there are priorities the american people overwhelmingly support. some include getting federal spending zero at -- under control. danny the economy moving again. getting our debt crisis under control so we may preserve the american dream. these are precisely the priorities that are incorporated in our house republican budget. american families know the federal of rigid federal government should not be spending more than it has. the budgets that have been proposed by the president in the past have never gotten a balance. the president missed the legal deadline of february 4 to send in a budget. past experience tells us when he gets around to it, it will likely not balance, either. american families cannot live this way and neither should the federal government.

democrats have not adopted a budget in four years. we look for to see in that budget. the test is to see whether or not they can pass that budget out of their own committee and chamber. we're which it will enough democrats be willing to endorse a plan with more so washington can spend more? that is not working. the house republican plan puts an end to special-interest deals. the house republican plan will create a healthier economy. more american families will realize their dreams. a path to prosperity ensures we are honoring our commitments to america posses priorities. the republicans care for the poor and the sec by report -- and the sec. -- and the sick.

i am proud to join my colleagues in this plan. >> two minutes to the john in new jersey. >> thank you. >> the static -- status quo is unacceptable. our budget stops the spending money we do not have and advances common-sense changes to strengthen our nation. this budget will finally restore an open america for business again. to say democrats have failed to lead would be a drastic understatement. every second grader in this country is on the hook for nearly $53,000 of national debt. the president and the senate democrats continue to overspend every day, increasing that

burden on their children. there is a cost to debt, and that is interest. senate -- senate democrats have not been in the debate, failing to pass a budget for 1400 a spirit with the president, back on february 4, by law, his budget was due. now, guess what? we are still waiting for it. to budget isilure unacceptable and unconscionable. every family in america understands the necessity of a balanced budget. the president and senate -- senate democrats could learn. families do not have the luxury of waiting for the next election cycle. neither does washington. it is time for responsible -- irresponsible action.

-- for responsible action. >> you talk about why it is necessary to tackle the debt crisis. i would like to yield two minutes to the senior kemp -- senior member of the committee. >> any of you have ever been to spain? i have. nice, hard-working people. great food. at one time, it was a very prosperous and growing economy. spain does not have a prosperous economy today. half of all people under 25 years old cannot find a job. -- people on government provided health care go and because they have had to cut back hours of service and operation, people cannot get the health care they need when they need it.

why did this happen? they did what we should not do. they spent too much, borrowed too much, and let it go on until they had a debt crisis. when that hit, they had to make corrections in all of this stuff overnight. now, they have this economy. we cannot let that happen here. balancing this budget is not about making cpas like me feel good. it is about not having what happens in spain or greece or japan. this is not speculation. what has happened is out there and we can see it. a balanced budget is about creating prosperity. it is about creating jobs, having the health-care promises we have made to the people something we can fulfill.

under which our young people can find a job. under which people can prosper and live the american dream. that is why balancing the budget is so important. >> two minutes from -- for the gentleman from california. >> thank you. i am generally an optimist. our growing debt crisis gives me and should give all americans real concerns about our future prosperity. all you have to do is calculate the complex fiscal challenges before us. truly understand the consequences for american families if we fail to act. during the clinton years, spending per capita was $8,175. testing for inflation, spending per capita during obama's tenure has been $11,822, a 45% increase.

have the american people benefited from the increased spending? we ask 46 millions -- million americans living in poverty, they would say no. 24.42%. as we have seen with european nations, there seems to be a tipping point in the spending to gdp ratio. we are very close. what effect does this level of debt have on our economy? the unemployment rate is 26%. this is real stuff. it is not going away. this budget puts the brakes on non sustainable spending levels and will allow our economy to grow. balanced budget by reducing the rate of spending, increase is not a radical ideal, but it is possible. i look forward to today's

debate. the american people deserve their president and election -- and elected officials to have a comprehensive and frank discussion. >> no question today. we know we face at a historic challenge. the debt is expanding rapidly. neither the president nor our friends on the other side of the aisle have offered a solution. if you look at the budgets we have seen and the budgets we fully expect to see, there are only three things in them certain. the first is ever higher taxes. the second is ever larger government, bigger, bigger, bigger. finally, expanding debt. and budgets that never come into balance. the republican plan offers something novel, a budget that actually bounces in 10 years. in the following decade, it

begins to fade down the enormous debt and we wrap up. that is the solution we ought to take. not a radical budget. it still allows for increases in spending over the next decade. 3.4% every year. most americans would like to have a race that size. but it comes into balance. if our friends will work with us, i think we will achieve that. the choice is clear and the time is now. the american people expect us to act. i yield back. you.hank i would like to expand to the german from california. >> thank you. this budget reflects a great struggle between american families and their governor over whether they or the government can best spent the money they

have earned. it is that simple. this budget bands the struggle slowly back in favor of the families by returning to them the freedom to spend more of their own money and make more of their own decisions. every billion dollars spent in washington, $9 is taken from the average family. it is about time we started thinking about these norris in family-sized terms. ultimately, the numbers have a very real impact on those families who are struggling to balance their own budget. set their own priorities, and look at their own. only what a government spends, either now or in the future. today, we passed out more than one-third of a cost to our children and financed the remainder through a tax system in which politicians pick winners and losers through an

unfair and distorted tax code. this would do away with those distortions that ship capital away from economic expansion in into the service of political objectives. this budget calls for flattening and lowering tax rates than to insure no american family plays a quarter of earnings to the federal government. -- pays a quarter of earnings to the federal government parent. in short, freedom works. it is time we put it and america back to work. this budget does not. >> thank you. i would like to yield. >> thank you. families balance their budgets

each and every year. we believe washington should do the same. to balance the budget, we need spending cuts and economic growth. balancing your budget is not extreme. it is common sense. most of us would agree with that. after four straight years, there are still about 23 million americans looking for work and the economy is barely growing fast enough to keep pace with the increase of population. it is time we take a look at our spending. if government spending were really the key to growth, we would be in the midst of an economic boom. clearly, that is not the case. another huge obstacle to our growth rate now is the complicated tax code. it would be interesting to note every year, americans spend about 6 billion hours and $160

billion filing tax returns. the tax code is ripe for reform. it is a bipartisan consensus in favor of lowering tax rates and running the base -- and broadening the base. the purpose of tax reform is not to take more money just to spend more, but to create jobs and increase wages for working families and promote upward mobility. i look forward to working with my colleagues here on the budget committee to advance and do a comprehensive tax reform. >> two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma. >> a pleasure to have the opportunity to sit and have this conversation about the future of the nation.

it is very important back home. we understand words have meeting. -- meaning. if we think certain people -- if we raise taxes on certain people we do not like or make it so every family can succeed. this has meaning last home. a family had a conversation. they said we need tax reform and have stability. they are a small family owned truck company. one request was, can we simplify and stabilize our tax code so we have predictability to look at it in the long term. it's not big multinational corporations. this is a family-owned trucking company. it is the same thing with a

small manufacturing company. they have manufacturing and it provides energy supplies to companies all of the world. one big request is some kind of stability in our tax code. we have the highest tax rate for businesses in the world. it makes it difficult for businesses to complete globally. we live in a global economy but we ignore global realities of where we are in our tax code. it is important we fix that. it is important we fix our code not just to grab more revenue from the american people, but to increase american economic activity. we lose track of the fact that this year is now forecast to be the highest amount of revenue coming into the federal treasury in history. no other year receiving more money into the treasury than this year. this is a moment for us to look seriously at our spending. let's look at families and family owned businesses. >> next, i would like to yield

to wisconsin to talk about how the budget is designed to provide upward mobility and give the states the tools they need to craft these programs to help those closest to them in need. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about something i am passionate about. that is our nation's core. i would like to make one response about some of the comments earlier. there are a lot of misperceptions. a lot. i heard earlier because president obama was reelected, that was a rejection of the budget here. when i glanced to my left, i see mr. ryan in the chairman's seat and the same americans put you back in place. it is not necessarily a rejection of what we are trying to do here. i would like to speak about another misperception among the american people that conservatives necessarily really do not care much about the court.

the idea of taking care of the poor is to throw a lot of additional money at them. money is not the solution here. we do not help a starving child by creating policies that keep the starving child's father or mother out of work. this budget does the very types of things that will help create and spur economic growth to put that family member back to work , to pull the child out of poverty and to give the mom and dad the self-respect and dignity of a job they so rightly deserve in our economy. we do it by the very types of things we have heard in this room that claim do not happen in this budget. we stopped capitalism and reduce and get rid of loopholes for corporations. that is often the discussion about capitalism and whether we support it. i'd support capitol's and.

i do not support phonies and. republicans can find agreement on that. to the degree that we take a look at what we can do, not necessarily throwing money at it. throwing money at it does not often get the result. to the degree we can find a way to come together in this room and in this chamber, to come together with a logical, clear thinking solution to put americans back to work is the fastest way to end child poverty in this country. it is a goal i really feel that both sides want to see happen. our differences are not that we do not want children to have food. or poor people to eat. our difference is how we get to that. i think this budget takes us the fastest way to a permanent record -- permanent cure.

>> i want to thank you for your leadership and commitment to produce a budget that balances in 10 years. that is an excellent accomplishment. i know many of us are pleased to be a part of it. i look forward to its passage. the solutions this budget has are built on the premise that every american family understands. we cannot keep spending money we do not have. even under this budget, the federal budget will spend $41 trillion over the next 10 years. i know i certainly cannot visualize what that looks like. it is a lot of money. we have to be good stewards of that kind of money. we should be asking, are these programs working. one thing that is not working in america today is medicaid. recipients are having a trouble

finding doctors. medicaid pays half of what a doctor can give for his or her services in the private sector. the result, the health outcomes, are poor. studies suggested there were 13 more -- 30% more likely than those without insurance at all to die. who is proud of that? the program is also pushing our states closer and closer to the brink of fiscal collapse. states spend more on medicaid than any other expense. obamacare is only making the problem worse. we should look at what reforms are working on the ground. i point to two states, rhode island in indiana. rhode island, the flexibility, they agreed to cap medicaid expenses for five years.

they put recipients in a managed-care program and it is working. in indiana, we were able to cover 40,000 more people in the help -- healthy indiana program. let's put these funds to the state. get the federal government out of the way and let's follow the examples of rhode island, indiana, and many other states with ways to make the program work. we can do what was suggested and help those who need it. i yield back. >> i am emphasizing how this budget focuses on establishing a secure retirement for our seniors by saving the medicaid program. >> thank you. as pleased as i am this is a budget that takes on challenges we agree have to be taken on. that is a survey they took a few

years back where they found that more college-aged americans believed they would see a ufo than a social security check. as you know, the program is in march from their shape -- in much stronger shape. there is a real concern about what the future of the program is and every single of the -- member of the body knows if we fail to take on that challenge, the program will be destroyed. this budget goes into that challenge knowing troy's can make all the difference in the world. getting my mom and dad involved in part of the solution could make all the difference in the world. it is absolutely time to stop measuring our success by how much we put into a profit -- a prospect and begin measuring it by what we are getting out of the process. the challenge it talked about

for medicaid patients, it is becoming true in the medicare segment of the population, as well. it does not matter what kind of car you give to the american citizens if they cannot find a health-care provider willing to take it, they have no access to care. kicking the can down the road has been popular for decades upon decades. the committee has taken on the challenge of addressing it, solving it, and taking it off the list of american seniors more than any other body in this town, i am grateful to fail to reform the medicare system is to destroy it. we cannot allow that to happen. i yield back. >> thank you. a similar theme was echoed by a woman who came to us. >> thank you. i have to tell you i was driving here and i noticed white smoke

going over the senate side. [laughter] i was thrilled to see they will present a budget. very different from the work we have done. and because of your leadership, again, we are going to present a budget that is fiscally sound and responsible. i am pleased to see -- pleased to support this proposal and continue working on it i thank you for your leadership. we all know the best way to get this country on the path to prosperity is to pass a budget that will balance. our plan extends opportunity for all americans. it attacks and strengthens medicare. something that is vital to be done for future generations and current seniors, that is something i want to talk about. i visited last week in my

district with a young couple. they are just 30 out. they are buying their first from. they are expecting their first child. every two weeks, they are watching money come out of their paychecks for medicare and social security. the federal government has first right of refusal on their paycheck. the question to me is, are we ever going to see another dime of that money? the priorities in life have changed. they are beginning to think long term. when we hear these attacks on those of us who want to step forward and do what is necessary to stabilize, save, and to extend the program, we have to wonder how credible those are when there is no credible alternative on how you would go about stabilizing.

i thank you for the work you have done on this and requiring the president to work together with congress to forge a solution on social security and to realize we have to take into account our current seniors, and our future participants in the medicare and social security programs. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. i yield two minutes to the gym and from mississippi. >> that is what a new member does. thank you. two decades ago, i lost my job in a corporate merger. after a couple of days of moping around and feeling sorry for myself, my wife and i got up one morning and we sat around the kitchen table. we took out a sheet of notebook table and on one side, we wrote

down what we had coming in and on the other side, we wrote down how we would spend it. i would be less than honest if it -- if i did not tell you we shed some tears that morning. we tried to separate those things that were important with those things that were vital. there are families sitting around their kitchen tables this morning making -- making those same tough decisions and shedding those tears. they have every reason to expect their government and washington to do the same thing. nowhere is that more important than in the medicare system. we have been told medicare is more broke in 12 years. that is not acceptable. this budget addresses the problem. we can sit around and hope things get better, but i would suggest to you that hope makes a good campaign slogan but it is not a responsible approach to

budget. this budget strengthens medicare for current generations and recipients and it saves medicare for the next generation. i yield back. >> thank you. next, on the store in fairness, one of the cornerstone objectives of the budget, i would like to yield to texas. >> thank you. today, we are marking up a responsible plan to balance the budget. the plan will hold washington accountable to fix our broken tax code and repair the safety net, expand opportunities for american families, and create a more accountable and efficient and effective government. the budget will help promote a path to energy security by increasing opportunities to america's abundant energy resources garrett this budget will stop the unfair use of

funding from hard-working americans. as a job creator and a cpa, i have seen firsthand how domestic american energy production can be a valuable component in creating jobs and fixing -- fixing our nation's balance. the u.s. has combined recoverable and natural gas, oil, and that is the largest in the earth, larger than russia, saudi arabia, or china. today, the united states is known as black the saudi arabia of natural gas. the chart on the screen, if we can bring it up, illustrates how we can bring revenues by hundreds of billions of dollars by not enacting punitive taxes and by expanding exploration for energy on federal lands and oceans. the loss potential is also $200

billion. you could say there is a trillion dollar gap between the two numbers. this administration wastefully invests in corporate welfare programs like cylinder. they have several brothers and sisters. this is not fair. think about the education or basic research. it could have been funded if this taxpayer money had not been squandered on the president's capitalism and welfare. this budget will restore fairness, which the american people want, by encouraging robust competition. it will end kickbacks and corporate welfare to industries. it will promote policies for reliable, low-cost energy. for example, by approving the keystone pipeline and allowing for the opening of federal land

to american energy production, this budget moves our country toward the goals of american energy security, economic growth, national security, more jobs, and better paychecks for american families. thank you. >> two minutes to the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you. families sit around their kitchen tables, finding a way to keep a budget. this principle yields business sense and it has households living within their means to yield success. in indiana, we make tough choices. we balance our budgets. the federal government continues to enable government spending that is bankrupting our children's future. american families hold the president and congress accountable and expect washington to come to gather and produce a serious plan. the budget before us today puts our nation on a sustainable course. it puts an end to the obama

administration tosses roadblock to energy development and pave the way for projects like my colleague just mentioned, the keystone pipeline, which will generate more than 130,000 jobs, boost our economy, and bring down energy costs. the budget also promotes economic growth, job creation, supports research and development in the energy sector, and moves america to a more energy independent state. it expands oil and gas development, which could generate a half a million new jobs and $14.40 trillion in increased economic and art -- activity. by preventing or delaying domestic energy exploration, the obama administration has driven jobs overseas. in this budget, the house republicans in the subsidies, --

support for this budget translates into a response will plan to grow our economy and create jobs. i yield back my time. >> i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you. what we are doing here today, people in america are hurting. to many parents have come hold -- come home and told their children they do not have a job. washington has refused to make the tough choices necessary to jump-start a healthy economy to create jobs and opportunity for every american. we hear a lot from the other side of the aisle about a balanced approach. there is not much balanced about a budget that does not balanced. beyond that, if the american people understand our approach, they would understand it is very balanced, despite the rhetoric

on the other side, this budget does not cut spending. our budget controls spending. schists spending. given the rhetoric on the other side, our constituents might be surprised to learn spending actually increases under the budget resolution. spending rose much more slowly under our budget than under the existing base line. our budget saves the american taxpayer to buy dollars trillion. even with our budget, spending is 40% higher in 10 years than it is now. despite dire warnings about cuts, spending will increase by 3.5%. only in washington is spending more money than the previous year called a cut. spending controls and reforms called for are steps to foster a healthier and more secure economy. it is not rocket science. is the kind of common sense

americans apply every day. i am proud to support this budget. i look forward to working with others on the committee as we move forward. >> thank you. two minutes to the jam and from south carolina. >> thank you. i want to start up -- start out by saying i agree with our president. the senator said we had a moral imperative to control our deficit. the best way to shrink our deficit is to grow our economy. to grow good paying jobs and put hard-working americans back to work. unemployment remains stubbornly high. we have seen the enemy and he is us. our bloated and inefficient federal government does not promote but stifles progress. it makes us less competitive in the world. we are not being beaten by our competitors worldwide. we are beating ourselves. through excessive taxation and

regulation, the federal government stifles economic growth and shifts more and more american jobs overseas every year. on a regulation in energy throughout the middle class, higher fuel costs, slows our path to a national energy independence, and costs hundreds of thousands of new american jobs in the energy industry. banks are a primary source of capital for middle-class families and small businesses. the added burden of the dodd- frank regulations, hamstrings our bank at a time when small businesses and middle-class families need them the most. it does nothing to prevent large institutions from becoming too big to fail. it will lead to the disappearance of many small minds as they cannot afford the extra costs of complying with massive additional regulation. the president has repeatedly

said we need to streamline excessive regulation. dodd-frank and the patient protection act at tens of thousands of pages of additional and they are still being drafted three years later. it is time for the action to max -- match the rhetoric. let's get government out of the way and get our economy moving and put hard-working americans back to work. i yield the rest of my time. >> thank you. on the need to talk about how this budget affects the primary responsibility of federal government and national security, i would like to yield two minutes. >> thank you. it is a privilege to serve the second congressional district largely because of the risk i know for certain our fiscal trajectory prevents -- presents to this great country. it requires of us to make a very

difficult decisions and set the right priorities. i am so proud of our budget. we have set the right party to protect american people. the house budget resolution we are here to discuss today cost $560 billion. the amount is fully consistent with the needs we have to fully fund our united states military. at the hearing on february 13 of 2013, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said this. what do you want our military to do? if we cannot give another dollar? we set our priorities and this budget restores defense spending to before sequester levels. it retains the discretionary caps that were originally established under the budget control act. what does all this mean? it means we have fully funded our military. we have set the right party

spirit we will meet the obligations we have. not as a member of one party or another, but just as fellow americans. i appreciate your leadership. i appreciate how you have been tackling our nation's most difficult challenges with respect to our budget. thank you and i yield back. >> on a similar theme, two minutes to the gym from missouri. >> thank you very there is no greater priority of congress and to provide for the defense. this does that. we provide for the safety of our citizens from threats, home and abroad. while defending the terrorists, or deterring the perforation of weapons of -- plot -- a proliferation of weapons, this

budget provides the best equipment, the best training, and the best compensation for continued success. the budget provides $560 billion in funding. over the next decade, it provides over $6 billion to fund our national defense. the budget will reflect the fact that our national security is our top priority. it does it by replacing the owners cuts in sequestration. it is important that we do prioritize our national defense. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff also said our current security challenges are more complex than those we face following words in korea, vietnam, and the cold war. there is no foreseeable peace dividend on our horizon. the threats of our country have changed since the cold war. they have not disappeared. to sustain a force capable of meeting the challenges we face, we must stop making arbitrary cuts to our national defense.

when the sequester took place, it cut $43 billion from fiscal year 2013. it will cut $500 billion over the next 10 years. defense makes up 20% of the budget. receives 50% of the cuts. our budget replaces sequester cuts for national defense and gets priorities right as a nation. it also fully funds the support to the commitment we have made for our veterans for their selfless military service. promises made should be promises kept. our budget does that. thank you. >> thank you. i like to yield for the purpose of discussing why a balanced budget is important. two minutes to determine from texas. >> thank you. i would like to echo what many have said today. thank you for putting together a smart, responsible budget right for america and business owners and families. this plan is cold, rational, and

balanced. i am a small business owner. i have owned and operated my business for over 41 years. i still operate it. i have more private sector experience than governments experience. i can say this budget will put people back to work and reverse the obama economy that is killing jobs about our country. we have to have a balanced budget. i have to balance my budget. everybody in american -- in america has to balance their family or businesses budget not every tenure, but every single day. if reverent -- 10 years. , but every single day. but the path of prosperity requires us to make tough decisions. that is why we are here today.

if we apply those principles, we will ensure america's best days ahead -- are ahead and we will stay the most powerful country militarily and economically. by cutting waste and not spending money we do not have, the government can become a team player. by lowering taxes, we will increase income and unemployment will be lower. by balancing the budget, we will help the economy rebuild itself. balancing america's books is greater than one person and one committee. i am used to looking at numbers and making good business decisions that benefit my business, customers, and my employees. i know a plan to an hour the people rather than the government is a plan that will work. it will give families and business owners across the country the opportunity,

freedom, and ability to grow and thrive and realize the american dream and not the american scheme. it is the american people who will get us out of this mess, and not the federal government. economic security for families means a balanced budget, lower taxes, and in texas, we would say, let's just do it. >> thank you. two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you. i am honored to be here today supporting the budget that puts america on a pathway and trajectory to balancing our budget. you listen to house and senate democrats. you hear them talk about a balanced approach to our budget. the approach is not balanced. and their approach never leads up -- leaves us with a balanced budget. that is not acceptable. 20 years with their proposal, you never balance the budget. 50 years, they still are money appeared 100 years from now, they will still have us our money from china.

the ranking member talks about republicans having an eye -- having a not compromising approach. we have no one to compromise with. if they would put a balanced budget down, we could negotiate a pact with forward for america. they will not do the hard work, they may not like our approach, but they could tell us they're great approach, then both sides could come together and find agreement. if they will not give us a proposal, there is no room for negotiation. that is a problem. you look around this room, and i do not think anyone of us here will pay $1 back of what we know today. the $1 trillion the bar of this year and next, none of us are going to pay 1 cent of that back if we stay on the current course. we have to look to our kindergarteners and first

graders, little toddlers in america. we will ask them to pay back this massive debt bank and deficits. that is not acceptable. the true cost of the debt, we talk about it being $225 billion. if we stop the printing presses and stopped buying our debt, you will see interest rates rise. it would go to $400 billion a year. this is not sustainable. we have to put america on the pathway to balance. let's get it done. >> let me summarize some of the points and themes we will hear today. we had an election and why do not just move on? well, look, our speaker offered revenue increases in negotiations through tax reform. what happened? we get tax increases. we got the fiscal cliff. it raised our revenues. it did it through job killing

tax increases. what is the reality we are bending to? we accept that these tax increases are in law. they have started and they are there. we are saying, we can hit these same numbers without hurting the economy and without costing jobs through fundamental tax reform. that is what we are saying. get rid of these jobs. get rid of the high tax rates and small businesses through tax reform. another point i think the ranking member will keep mentioning, medicare. and the medicare savings used for obamacare. two points. if you take the money from medicare to spend on obamacare, it does not go to medicare. we are saying, do not spend it on obamacare. make sure it goes to spending on the solvency of medicare. a number of groups in writing obamacare, supporting the legislation, said they could do more with less, but not all

providers said that. we really do not know the answer to the puzzle because most of the cuts have not occurred yet. the tax increases are already in law and have already started. all the provider changes in the medicare network, and i have been on the oversight committee for 13 years. they have not even begun yet. we have not sorted through what will happen to providers. that is why we set up a mechanism to address the issues as they come in. some providers said they can do more with less. some said they could not. we will have to figure that out so the medicare provider network is strong and we are not turning people away and we can do it on a deficit-neutral basis to make sure physicians do not draw patients when they get a cut, which we prevented from happening. look, a budget is about making choices. if we do not get the budget balance, it will hurt our economy today.

we should stop thinking about all of our efforts, whether it is fighting poverty or provide seniors guaranteed health care. we should stop thinking about it by how much money we throw at problems. why do we measure outputs? are we helping people? are we getting people out of poverty? are we giving seniors the actual security of knowing their retirement is secure or not? these are the kinds of questions you need to ask. i have got to tell you, it is not about making expenses and revenues match. it is about improving people's lives, growing the economy, restoring opportunity. we have a new budget process, meaning the senate is actually doing a budget. we hope at the end of the day, we are still talking to each other and we can get a down payment on the problem. we may not see eye to eye, but thankfully they are doing something so we can have a process in seas -- on c-span, in

public view, so we can get a down payment on the problem. we know the debt crisis will turn this country into something we never intended it to be. i would like to yield the rest of the time. >> thank you. we agree on one thing. the numbers that appear -- we believe the but -- the numbers will have a negative impact on families, kids, opportunity to get a good education, and the jobs situation right now. i will yield 10 minutes to go into detail about how this particular republican budget will hurt jobs and our global economic competitors. >> thank you.

there is one thing i think we all agree on. ultimately, the pathway to fiscal health is a growing and vibrant economy. we have very different perspectives on what we in washington can do to make sure our economy grows. i would characterize the republican side as being one of cutting the role of government in our economy and ours is different. not too long ago, we had a white house business round table where we had 35 business leaders from across the community, all political sides, and here is what they said they thought

washington government should be doing to help expand the economy. these are answers straight off the transcript. in the order they were mentioned. support entrepreneurs by having a more transparent process. spend more on research and development. provide more english as a second language programs. invest in community colleges to better prepare citizens for the work force. help bring more capital to small businesses. provide incentives to maintain a highly skilled workforce. stop cutting education. train students in advanced manufacturing. improve literacy initiatives. support child care programs, making it easier for adults to go back to school. fix no child left behind. that is three payments of -- pages of feedback. no mention of cutting spending and taxes for the wealthy, drowning wealthy and drowning government in a bathtub.

these are business leaders trying to function every day to make our economy grow. they want washington's help, not its avoidance. this is where the ryan republican budget is a dismal failure. all of the things our businesses are crying out for, the rhine budget would be emphasized -- ryan budget would deemphasize. it is the enemy of growth. i submit the revenue, my business leaders in kentucky. with that, i would yield to my colleagues in florida. >> i thank my good friend from kentucky. colleagues, this republican budget should come with a warning label -- american jobs at risk. because the republican budget will lead to large job losses

and harm economic growth just at the time when the economy is improving for some many of our neighbors and businesses back home. republicans continue to turn a blind eye to the economic fact that more people working across america and lower unemployment reduces the deficit. economists, including the congressional budget office director right here in this room, advise that putting americans back to work is the fastest and most effective way to reduce the debt and deficit. it is inexplicable that republicans propose to eliminate jobs in construction, education, scientific research, and keep the burden on middle-class families. this is a very poor reading of the situation that american families are in today. the republican budget undermines the republican budget undermines what makes america